Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND 1965–66

Accounts ordered,
of the Civil Contingencies Fund. 1965–66, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1966, and (2) the distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

Shipbuilding Industry

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Technology what consultation he has had with the Geddes Committee on changes in the outlook for shipbuilding since the Geddes Report was written.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Edmund Dell): None, Sir. The Geddes Committee was disbanded when it completed its Report. My right hon. Friend is, of course, in contact with the Shipbuilding Industry Board through the Chairman.

Mr. Digby: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary recognise that there have been some changes and that the prospects of home shippers ordering at home are no better than they were—indeed, are perhaps a little worse—and will he also recognise that the Geddes Report is now not entirely up to date?

Mr. Dell: The main recommendations of the Geddes Report are certainly up to date in respect of, for example, the importance of amalgamations in this industry. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we will shortly be introducing legislation.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my hon. Friend asserting that the shipbuilders, through the Shipbuilding Conference, have never made any representation to the Ministry or to any other Department—perhaps to the Board of Trade—since the Geddes Report was published?

Mr. Dell: Certainly there have been representations, as my right hon. Friend said last week. Their representations on the subject of home credit facilities are now being considered.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Technology whether he is aware that British shipbuilding is losing the home market because it is unable to offer credit terms competitive with those available to British owners abroad; and whether he will take immediate steps to extend favourable credit terms to British owners ordering British ships.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Technology if he will take steps to review and bring the recommendations of the Geddes Committee up to date, in view of the rapidly changing and deteriorating situation facing the British shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Dell: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the position, but these current difficulties emphasise the need for the industry to press on with its plans for reorganisation on the lines proposed by the Geddes Committee.

Mr. Digby: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that the pressure of the Opposition for better credit facilities is very reasonable indeed and that the Treasury is probably again being penny wise and pound foolish in this matter? Will he press his right hon. Friend to stand up to the Treasury in this matter?

Mr. Dell: We are getting ahead with this question of credit facilities for home owners as rapidly as possible. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the lack of credit facilities is not the whole of this problem. The competitiveness of the industry is of very great importance.

Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that what is needed is a speeding up of the implementation of the Geddes recommendations, that the industry is waiting for this to happen and that we in the


North-East are particularly looking forward to this happening?

Mr. Dell: We have maintained the timetable of the Geddes Committee in every respect and, as I said earlier, legislation will be introduced very shortly.

Dame Irene Ward: Would the hon. Gentleman press his right hon. Friend to exercise pressure on the Leader of the House to implement the pledge, given a long time ago, that we would have a proper debate on the shipbuilding industry? That pledge has never been implemented. Is it not time that the Government kept one pledge, if they cannot keep any others?

Mr. Dell: I am sure that the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, when it is introduced, will give the hon. Lady an opportunity to speak on this subject.

Mr. Bagier: Would my hon. Friend also press the President of the Board of Trade to try to speed up the machinery of the E.C.G.D. procedure, which is causing serious difficulty to some shipbuilders in obtaining suitable credit terms for export orders?

Mr. Dell: I hope that my hon. Friend will refer to me any particular case he has in mind where slowness on the part of E.C.G.D. is holding up orders.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Technology what recommendations contained in the Geddes Report have been implemented.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): There is nothing more to report since I answered the Questions by the hon. Members for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) and Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) on 17th January last.—[Vol 739, c. 21.]

Mr. Shinwell: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that one of the principal recommendations of the Geddes Report was the need for improved credit facilities for British shipbuilders? Is he aware that that is supported not only by Opposition Members, but by many Members on this side of the House? Is he also aware that far too many orders are going abroad, to the detriment of the British shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Benn: I am very well aware of what my right hon. Friend says. He will,

however, be aware that the credit schemes that were included in the Geddes Report were linked to the regrouping. Since the Question refers to the Geddes Report, perhaps I might take the opportunity of reinforcing the need for these shipyards to come together with proposals for the Shipbuilding Industry Board so that we can really strengthen British industry.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that unemployment has risen to 8 per cent. in Northern Ireland due to the Westminster Government's economic policy? Which of the Geddes Recommendations will be implemented to help Harland and Wolff, of Belfast?

Mr. Benn: The hon. and learned Member knows that the future of the British shipbuilding industry and the employment that it can give to those who work in shipyards depend upon creating really strong units. It was upon this that the Geddes Report concentrated. This is central in our policy for the shipbuilding industry and I hope that when the Bill shortly comes before the House it will have the support of both sides.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I will raise this matter on an early occasion.

Machine Tools

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Technology what percentages of machine tools manufactured in Great Britain were numerically controlled in 1965; what are the estimates for 1970; and what steps he is taking to accelerate the conversion from conventional to numerical control.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): In the 12 months ending in September, 1966, the proportion was 0·36 per cent. by number, and 2·5 per cent. by value. These proportions are increasing, but it is not possible to make an accurate forecast for 1970. The Department's preproduction order and "trial period" scheme should increase demand.

Mr. Roberts: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there is a very close correlation between the spreading of numerically controlled machine tool


manufacture and the whole process of re-equipping and modernising industry? Is he aware that in the United States this is expanding by 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. per year, and that it is estimated that by 1970, 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the total will be numerically controlled, and that similar growth is being made in many other industrial countries?

Dr. Bray: I am aware of the importance of numerically controlled machine tools, both in their production and getting them in use in workshops, and in making sure that engineering design is modified to take advantage of numerically controlled techniques. We are encouraging their use over the whole range of manufacturing.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Technology what is the percentage change in the recorded value of net new home orders for machine tools during January-November, 1966, compared with the corresponding figure for 1965; what is the percentage change after allowing for inflation during this period; how these changes compare with the targets or forecasts contained in the National Plan; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Bray: Recorded orders were 6 per cent. lower in 1966. It is not possible to calculate what exact allowance for higher prices can be made in the value of orders.
The annual rate of growth of output envisaged in the National Plan for the period 1964–70 was 7·8 per cent. As the Machine Tools E.D.C. has reported, the actual growth in output in 1965 was 11·9 per cent.

Mr. Biffen: Is not this decline of 6 per cent. as compared with the promise of steady growth at the rate of 7·8 per cent. an extraordinarily pathetic performance? What does the hon. Gentleman expect may be the pattern to emerge during this year?

Dr. Bray: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman followed the Answer. The increase in output in 1965 was 11·9 per cent. In the first 11 months of 1966 it was 14 per cent. It is deliveries we have to look at in machine tools as well as orders.

Relations with Universities (Advisory Board)

Mr. Moonman: asked the Minister of Technology if he will give the terms of reference for the recently established Advisory Board on Relations with the Universities.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology whether the Advisory Board on Relations with the Universities which he has set up, under the chairmanship of Dr. S. C. Curran, F.R.S., will make an annual report; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: I will circulate the terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The Board is still at an early stage of its work and I should like to consider the question of an annual report later.

Mr. Moonman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he consider the possibility of relating two other aspects of this problem: the financing of research projects and the need for better communications between technological institutes, either now or later?

Mr. Benn: The terms of reference already include all matters which affect relations between the Ministry of Technology and the universities. The second point raised by my hon. Friend is one of the major jobs which the Ministry was set up to do.

Mr. Dalyell: Do the terms of reference include the problem of enabling those who are at present mostly engaged in military science research engaging in civil science research?

Mr. Benn: Not really, because that comes under a different heading. However, one of the purposes of transferring the Ministry of Aviation to my Department is to make this sort of thing more possible.

Mr. David Price: Would not the Minister agree that the most important single factor for promoting faster technological growth in relation to the universities is the need to get firms closer to the departments of universities? We have gone beyond the days of vice-chancellors and the C.B.I. having great


conferences. Surely this work must be done on the ground, so to speak, with the two sides being brought together.

Mr. Benn: Certainly, and that is why 59 liaison officers are situated in our technical colleges and universities. We have it in mind that the universities should play a fuller part in the areas of the country in which they operate; and I am glad to hear that this idea carries the support of the hon. Gentleman.

Following is the information:
Terms of reference of the Advisory Board on Relations with the Universities are:
To consider and report upon proposals for the formation and development of Institutes of Advanced Technology and to keep under review collaboration between the Ministry of Technology and the universities and other higher educational establishments on projects designed to promote technological progress in industry.

Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors

Mr. Gregory: asked the Minister of Technology what proposals he will make to the nuclear power engineering industry to reorganise the existing consortia system to ensure the advancement of the British advanced gas-cooled and high-temperature reactor systems, with a view to exploiting fully the economic advantages available in domestic application, and the export potential in this field.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Technology what progress is being made by the Atomic Energy Authority in the export of advanced gas-cooled reactor atomic power stations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: The promotion of A.G.R. exports is handled by the British Nuclear Export Executive, in which the A.E.A. and the three nuclear consortia work together. The A.G.R. is already being considered in one major tender competition and there are a number of further prospects in the offing. I am at this moment considering how best to increase the efficiency of the nuclear industry and promote export business. I am arranging to have talks with the industry.

Mr. Gregory: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would not he agree that we need a much stronger export organisation to exploit A.G.R. and our world lead in nuclear power, and that such an organisation should have a

nationally agreed policy towards existing and anticipated world markets?

Mr. Benn: That and similar considerations led me to suggest the talks which will shortly be taking place with the industry.

Mrs. Short: Would my right hon. Friend say whether or not it is correct that it is 18 months since we sold a nuclear reactor? Is he aware that there is now considerable competition from America and that there is great concern that our lead in this field is being whittled away?

Mr. Benn: I am aware of all those considerations. That is why we are pressing ahead with these discussions. We wish to see how our export effort can be strengthened.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that last September the Board of Management of O.E.C.D. high-temperature reactor project "Dragon" announced that, on the information available from the performance of "Dragon" so far, it would be carrying out an assessment of the prospects for a nuclear power station of this type and that the results of that assessment would be available early in 1967? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this report will be published and whether he considers that high-temperature reactors have a place in the British nuclear power programme?

Mr. Benn: That is a separate question.

Mr. Lubbock: No. Iit is a part of the Question.

Mr. Benn: With respect, a specific O.E.C.D. project, the "Dragon" project, raises a specific question; and there is a later Question on the Order Paper on that subject. However, I have in mind the considerations put by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. David Price: While agreeing that this problem is not as easy as the Question might suggest, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the C.E.G.B., for perfectly sound reasons, has been encouraging the nuclear engineering industry to go for very large stations, whereas at the moment such export orders as do exist appear to be for relatively small stations? What views has the right hon. Gentleman about how


we could marry these quite separate needs together for the benefit of our exports?

Mr. Benn: It is true that the A.G.R. involves considerable capital cost. However, the steam generating heavy water reactor which is going up a Winfrith is of a different kind and may have wider application. Coming along also is the fast reactor. Looking ahead to our export effort, which I hope will be vigorous, we must consider the new possibilities opened up by new reactor systems.

Nuclear-Propelled Merchant Vessel

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress towards the construction of a British-built prototype nuclear-propelled merchant vessel.

Mr. Dell: There is nothing that I can add to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 20th December, 1966.— [Vol 738, c. 211.]

Mr. Wall: In view of the fact that five nations are now building or planning to build nuclear ships, none of which will be economic, can the hon. Gentleman give any information about what is happening in research or forward planning to keep Britain in this race, which is of great importance to us as a maritime nation?

Mr. Dell: As the hon. Member will realise, the core of this problem is the production of a small reactor suitable for this purpose. The Atomic Energy Authority is keeping its eye on all work that is being done in this respect, but until the industry comes forward with a real risk-sharing project I do not think that the Government can take any action.

Mr. Hooley: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this country has a unique combination of experitise in both nuclear power and shipbuilding? Is it not high time that we took advantage of this fact to exploit this field of technology?

Mr. Dell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we are leaders in both these fields. Nevertheless, we still have to produce a small reactor which will enable us to build a ship that will operate economically.

Efficiency and Productivity (Consultancy Service)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Technology if he will take steps to set up a Government consultancy service to assist firms to raise their efficiency and productivity.

Mr. Benn: My Department's "Business Bureau" is already providing services of this kind, a list of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following the National Productivity Conference the wide range of Government and other advisory services, existing and planned, is being examined in collaboration with the National Economic Development Office, the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is need, however, to extend this service? Does he agree that one of the great problems of British industry is the number of medium and small firms with "old-boy" type managements who have no idea how or where they are going? Would my right hon. Friend further agree that the pioneer work done by the D.S.I.R. shows that an outstanding Government service can be provided in this direction at remarkably low cost?

Mr. Benn: I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. The fact is that this is being pressed ahead as rapidly as possible. There are 100 qualified people working in the regional liaison offices, 59 industrial liaison officers in the universities and colleges, various specialist national services and procurement advisory services, and £1 million has been put into the Production Engineering Advisory Service which begins within a few weeks. Although I recognise the importance of this matter, it has to be set in the wider context of voluntary and other Government services as well. We are well aware of it.

Sir C. Osborne: Does the Minister expect the fall in national productivity, which last month fell by 4½ per cent. to the lowest it has been for two years, to continue? If so, what more can he do to stop this fall?

Mr. Benn: In so far as the question relates to the general economic situation,


it goes beyond the ambit of the Question. I assure the hon. Member, however, that one of the effects of the present difficulties has been to encourage a number of firms to come and seek advice to see whether they could not escape from their own difficulties by raising productivity. This has been very encouraging.

Following is the list:

"Business Bureau"

The services of the Ministry of Technology, which together can be regarded as being a "Business Bureau", fall under three broad headings:

I. Regional Liaison services

Regional Offices

The Department's own regional staff together with Industrial Liaison Officers amount to some 100 qualified people. The Ministry has nine Regional Offices. It is an important function of the Regional Offices to help industry make full and proper use of the advisory and research facilities of the Ministry and the Research Associations. They also serve to co-ordinate the work of the Industrial Liaison Centres.

Industrial Liaison Centres

These centres based on technical colleges and universities and financed for the greater part by the Ministry, each have one or more ILOs who are members of the college staff. They are responsible for maintaining contact with local firms, particularly the smaller ones, and encouraging them to make greater use of existing scientific and technical knowledge and services. There are at present 59 such Centres.

II. Specialist national services

These are services to users of products and processes common to a wide range of industries. They are organised nationally because they need to draw on centralised scarce resources of manpower or machinery. They are in some cases organised by an independent body and will vary from being wholly financed by the Department to being independent of Government support. The aim will be for these services eventually to become as nearly as possible self-supporting with fees being charged on the basis of cost and the value of the benefit to the individual user. The continuation of a subsidy would need to be justified on the basis that the service conferred wider benefits to the community than those derived by the individual user.

These services include:

Standards
A whole range of inspection, testing and authentication services are being developed. Examples are the British Calibration Service, BSI's Kitemark scheme, and the Burghard scheme for standardising specifications for electronic components. The foundation of these schemes is the work on standards by BSI, which is of course supported by the Ministry.

Procurement Advisory Services

This form of service would only be applicable to the public sector. At present it is limited to the Computer Advisory Service.

Technological Services
There are a number of these specialised services, some independent, some grant aided and some wholly financed by the Department. Under this heading are included the National Computing Centre (to be supported by a Government grant-in-aid for the first few years), and the "Approaching Automation" campaign.
Several of the R.A.'s provide technological services for a wide range of industries. Outstanding examples are the Welding R.A., S.I.R.A., and P.E.R.A. The last named organisation will operate for the Ministry the Production Engineering Advisory Service due to commence in the spring of this year. S.I.R.A. provides a consulting service to industry in general through its SIRAID scheme.

Central Facilities
There are cases when sharing of expensive facilities can produce substantial economies. Examples are the Scottish Research Reactor Centre, N.P.L. Ship Division and wind tunnel facilities and N.E.L. test rigs.

III. Industry services

These are advisory and information services provided for individual industries and dealing with technology, management and industry etc.

Advisory services covering one or more of these fields are an important feature of the 50 R.A.'s (of which 48 receive grants from the Department).

Information and advisory work has always been a major factor of the work of the Ministry's research stations which have a substantial and growing contact with firms. Information and advice are provided without charge although for more substantial investigations a charge will generally be made.

In general the purpose of the Ministry is to act as a catalyst in the development of the closest contact between the Government's establishments, the R.A.'s, the universities and technical colleges, and the firms themselves.

It is intended that these industry services should be reviewed industry by industry and technology by technology with a view to strengthening their impact on industry's problems.

Review of needs for information
The Department is intending to initiate a pilot exercise in the course of the next year to determine the information needs of firms and the ways to supply them.

Hovercraft (Research and Development)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Technology what plans he has to coordinate and rationalise the activities of


the various bodies and groups responsible for the development of air-cushion vehicles, in view of the fact that these bodies and groups are all now within the ambit of his Department.

Mr. Benn: I am considering the arrangements for the co-ordination of Government research and development in hovercraft. As a first step the National Physical Laboratory will take over responsibility on 1st April for the Hythe Technical Group, a subsidiary body of the National Research Development Corporation. The Hythe Group is the largest Government-financed research and development unit now working in this field and the broad outlines for its future have been agreed. With permission, I will circulate further details of these arrangements in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I am sure that these arrangements will greatly help to increase the impetus behind hovercraft technology and development.

Mr. Fortescue: Does the Minister's reply mean that as from 1st April the National Research Development Corporation will have no responsibility for the development of the hovercraft industry?

Mr. Benn: No, certainly not. The relationship between N.R.D.C. and Hovercraft Development Ltd. and others in this field will remain. Here, however, was a centre of research which, we felt, should not be limited to one of the developments but should be generally available. I would greatly welcome further proposals for future development of hovercraft from other sources.

Mr. David Price: When H.D.L. comes under the National Physical Laboratory, will it become a division of the N.P.L. or will it retain the degree of managerial independence which it enjoyed as long as it was a subsidiary of the N.R.D.C., which all would agree had value?

Mr. Benn: I ought to explain that H.D.L. is not coming under the N.P.L., but the Hythe Technical Unit is. This means that Government research in hovercraft will be available for others who want to move into this field. H.D.L.'s position remains unaffected.

Following are the details:
The Hovercraft Technical Group at Hythe of Hovercraft Development Ltd., a subsidiary body of the National Research Development Corporation, will come under the control of a separate Hovercraft Unit to be set up by the National Physical Laboratory. A section of this unit will be attached to the Inter-Services Hovercraft Trials Unit of the Ministry of Defence. The N.P.L. unit will deal with all forms of hovercraft and with other applications of the air-cushion principle, including hover-trains.
Arrangements for co-ordination between the N.P.L. Hovercraft Unit and other Government R. &amp; D. establishments are under consideration. The co-ordinated Research and Development programmes will cover both civil and military aspects of the work and will be undertaken in close co-operation with N.R.D.C. and the industry.
N.R.D.C. will continue through H.D.L. to manage patent rights for hovercraft and hover-train inventions, including future inventions derived from the work of the Government's own establishments, and to consider applications for licences. It will also be prepared to consider new proposals for financial assistance to industry for the development of hovercraft.

Scientific Manpower (Report)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology what consideration he is giving to the recommendation made in the Interim Report of the Working Group on Manpower Parameters for Scientific Growth, Command Paper No. 3102, that further attention should be given to meeting demand in industry and the schools at least in part by redeployment from other sectors such as Government research establishments.

Mr. Dell: This recommendation is being taken fully into consideration in reviewing the programmes of work and staff requirements at Government research establishments under my right hon. Friend's control.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the sombre fact that in many secondary schools in Scotland and England, serious teaching for senior pupils in physics and chemistry is slowly grinding to a halt for want of teachers? Will he make special efforts to see that many in research departments for which his Department is responsible and who are, perhaps, over the age of 40 or 45 will be given the opportunity of teaching in grammar and comprehensive schools?

Mr. Dell: If the current reviews which we are undertaking show that the demand


of Government research establishments for qualified manpower might properly be reduced, this could benefit school teaching and industry. My hon. Friend will, however, remember that there are other difficulties. There can be no question of direction of staff and there are difficulties, for example, in the matter of relative salaries.

Research and Development (European Co-operation)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Technology what plans he has for further co-operation with European countries in research and development in technological industries.

Mr. Benn: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, in their discussions with the Governments of the Six about our possible accession to the European Economic Community, are exploring the scope for increased technological collaboration within Europe and best way of doing it.

Mr. Mills: Is it not vital for our industries and their continual advancement that this co-operation should take place and, more than that, that it is a sort of preparation for our entry into the Common Market? Will the Minister therefore redouble his efforts for his Ministry to see that this co-operation becomes a reality?

Mr. Benn: As the hon. Member knows, a number of collaborative efforts are already operating between firms in this country and firms on the Continent. There are also certain inter-Governmental collaborative efforts. When I was in Bonn recently talking to Herr Stoltenberg, the Minister for Scientific Research, I discussed with him another aspect of this problem, namely, the possibility of getting computer standardisation so as to make possible a further strengthening of the European computer industry. I think that in these ways the objectives of European industrial strength will be met.

Mr. David Price: Would not the Minister agree that the prospects of purely technological collaboration are limited unless we get right the commercial, economic and political infrastructure as proposed in the Treaty of Rome?

Mr. Benn: It certainly has been the experience of my Department, having been set up as a Ministry of Technology, that in two years it has developed into a Ministry of Industry. I suspect that Europe in a sense requires a Ministry of Technology or some equivalent organisation. In so far as that is what the hon. Member is suggesting, I greatly welcome it.

Hovercraft Technologists (Employment in United States)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology how many leading hovercraft engineers and designers have left British firms and organisations to take up employment with their American competitors; and if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to ensure that British patents and "know-how" are not given to their American competitors by means of a brain drain of this type.

Mr. Dell: Exact statistics are not available; but I know of six hovercraft technologists who have left this country to work in the U.S.A. during the last four or five years.
An American company already has licences from this country to manufacture hovercraft.

Mr. Osborn: Where Government finance has been used to develop the hovercraft and other ventures, what steps have been taken to ensure that senior engineers, technicians and technologists are bound by contract or agreement not to take part in similar activities in this country or elsewhere? Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into this situation to ensure that when we develop technologies of this type, there are contracts which bind people to Government finance as well as other technological developments?

Mr. Dell: I will certainly look into what the hon. Member says. I should, however, emphasise that American patents have been granted to us which correspond to the British hovercraft patents and are protected by American law.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the House has been told by the Prime Minister and other Ministers during the past two years that when the TSR2 contract was cancelled


the engineers engaged upon it would go into the export business, but that this simply has not happened? Why do the Government shirk the responsibility of finding out from the firms involved how, when and where these men go when they leave these very important companies?

Mr. Dell: In this case, we know where these men have gone. I remind the hon. Member, however, that the reason why there is a lack of statistics in this area is because when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office they discontinued these statistics.

Steam Generating Heavy Water Reactor

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology what consideration he is now giving to the construction of a 300 megawatt steam generating heavy water reactor; what estimate he has made of the capital cost per kilowatt, and the generating cost of each unit of electricity; and what information has already been gained from the steam generating heavy water reactor at Winfrith Heath.

Dr. Bray: The construction of the prototype S.G.H.W. reactor at Winfrith is on schedule and it should be on power this autumn. Data on it is being prepared, and costs forecast are promising. Discussions with potential customers are in progress.

Mr. Osborn: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the future for larger units based on information gained so far? Is not this another break through of which we can be proud?

Dr. Bray: Yes, indeed it is a great achievement of which there is much to be proud. It would, however, be premature to venture cost estimates even for the present reactor until it is actually on steam and the prototype has been proved.

Whisker Technology

Mr. Brian Parkyn: asked the Minister of Technology how much Government money was spent last year on whisker chemistry; and whether he will intensify research effort in this field in the future.

Dr. Bray: Government expenditure last year on whisker technology was approximately £85,000 shared between Ministry

of Aviation, the Atomic Energy Authority, and the Science Research Council. The future of these programmes is currently under review.

Mr. Parkyn: In thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether, in view of the tremendous future importance of these new types of metal, he will ensure that there is adequate liaison and co-operation between those carrying out work in universities and industry and also in Government establishments?

Dr. Bray: The Ministry of Technology has had no request from industry for sponsorship of work in this field. It is an expensive field of research and we would be interested in any approaches. As for co-ordination with the universities, there is at present sponsorship amounting to a cost of £5,000, and we would certainly accept that there is scope for expansion here.

Slide Rules (Pamphlet)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Technology why he advertised in a pamphlet entitled, "The Engineers Day," a large picture of a slide rule obviously of foreign manufacture, when British-made slide rules are freely available.

Mr. Benn: I wrote fully to the hon. Member on 6th December on this subject and there is really nothing more I can say.

Mr. King: In thanking the Minister for that generous expression of regret, may I ask him to make amends by conceding that excellent British slide rules are made in Weymouth, in Dorset?

Mr. Benn: There is no doubt at all about the quality of British slide rules.

Mr. Shinwell: Why should my right hon. Friend apologise for buying foreign slide rules? After all, are we not going into the Common Market in the near future?

Mr. Benn: Except that in this case no foreign slide rule was bought. The designer picked out a group of slide rules for the poster. He did not notice that this was a foreign slide rule; it did not have the name on it. It passed a Committee including a representative of the engineering institutions, who did not notice the


fact. As a result of the hon. Member's activity, it has now received wide publicity.

Rootes Motors Ltd. (Linwood Factories)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement on the effects of the Chrysler takeover on the employment prospects of those now engaged at Rootes' Linwood factories and the additional numbers who may expect to be employed there.

Mr. Benn: I am informed that Rootes Motors Ltd. plan to increase considerably the output of its Linwood plants. These developments will involve an increase in employment of some 4,000–5,000 phased over about five years.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, following his statement last Tuesday that employment at Rootes at Linwood would increase by several thousand, a Rootes spokesman stated that those figures were purely speculative? Has my right hon. Friend any comment to make on that?

Mr. Benn: I am glad to say that I am not answerable for what Rootes say, but my understanding of the expansion plan is that the employment will rise by this amount in the period I have mentioned. The pressings plant, which has been on a four-day week, went on to full time today. The car plant, which has been on a four-day week, went on to full time yesterday. Therefore, employment has already increased.

Mr. David Price: What is the right hon. Gentleman's understanding of how the Rootes-Chrysler plans for Linwood fit in with its plans for Coventry? Is there to be a similar expansion for Coventry? Is Coventry to run down? Or is it to remain at its present level?

Mr. Benn: The fact that we were involved in the negotiations with Rootes and Chrysler does not make me answerable for the full development of the plans. The position, as was explained clearly last week, is that there is a Rootes expansion plan and that Linwood, in which the Government have considerable investment of public money, was specifically mentioned. It is the hope that Rootes

will grow and develop, and this is one reason why the I.R.C. director has been put on the board.

National Computing Centre

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to ensure the maximum co-operation between the National Computing Centre at Manchester and the proposed Institute of Computer Sciences and Cybernetics shortly to be established in London.

Dr. Bray: I have no doubt that the National Computing Centre will seek to co-operate appropriately with all bodies established in fields related to its work.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the Government's decision to attempt to separate science from technology, putting science under the Department of Education and Science and technology under the Minister's Department, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that before this Institute is set up the Government will consult Dr. Rose, who I understand is to be the chairman of the organising body of this new Institute, to see whether he and Professor Black together will advise the Ministers as to the best Ministerial responsibilities, in so far as they exist?

Dr. Bray: The proposed Institute is an entirely unofficial body. Co-ordination in the official field between the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Technology is extremely close over the whole field of computer applications; and through the Computer Board, the National Computing Centre and other advisory bodies there is very effective co-ordination.

Dragon Project

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Technology what action Her Majesty's Government are taking, as Members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, to obtain an early decision from those countries which are also members of Euratom that will enable the Dragon Project at Winfrith to be continued until 1970.

Mr. Benn: The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, as the United Kingdom signatory to the Dragon Agreement, has been active in seeking to extend


the Dragon Agreement to 1970. Her Majesty's Government are supporting the Authority by representation through our Embassies in Euratom countries.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that as long ago as May of last year the chief executive of the Dragon Project, at a lecture in London, said that it was hoped that an early decision would be made on this matter then? We are now well into 1967. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman specifically seeking to take with the Euratom countries to get them to agree to a third five-year plan?

Mr. Benn: I have described one method I have adopted. I also discussed it when I took the Chair at the Euratom United Kingdom Continuing Committee. I took it up with Herr Stoltenberg in Bonn last week. There is no doubt that it is important, but the hon. Gentleman will have to recognise that, if he is advocating international organisations on a European pattern, the budgetary problems when five Governments are discussing what they will pay over a five-year period may well create serious difficulties for projects of this kind.

Hovertrains (Development)

Mr. David Price: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a report upon the development work being carried out by Hovercraft Development Limited, of Hythe, upon the hovertrain.

Mr. Dell: Hovercraft Development Ltd. has been continuing experimental work on the hovertrain and is in discussion with the Railways Board.

Mr. Price: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that the French are going ahead with M. Jean Bertin's aerotrain and are having a 10 kilometre trial on it and that ours is technically on paper superior? Could we get a move on in doing an experiment with British Railways, because this offers tremendous prospects for inter-provincial passenger travel?

Mr. Dell: I am aware of the interesting work going on in France on this matter. A joint study is now being undertaken with the Ministry of Transport on future prospects for hovertrains in this country.

Mr. Fortescue: Would the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that this work is among the work being taken over by the National Physical Laboratory on 1st April?

Mr. Dell: I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Defence Projects (Scientists and Engineers)

Mr. David Price: asked the Minister of Technology what administrative arrangements he has made in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Defence to redeploy within, or to release from, the public service qualified scientists and engineers who are no longer required on defence projects, including those employed by the Atomic Energy Authority.

Mr. Dell: We are dealing with this problem by continuing collaboration with other Government Departments and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

Mr. Price: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give the House an undertaking that at some point in the Department's studies it will give some solid information to the House?

Mr. Dell: I can now inform the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of reductions in the defence programme, several hundred qualified scientists and engineers have been released from the Atomic Energy Authority since 1962. The hon. Gentleman will find some information on this subject in the recent Report of the Willis Jackson Committee.

Television Rental Charges

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Technology on what grounds he allowed Granada T.V. Rentals to adjust their agreements with customers in such a way as in effect to increase prices and if he will now make a statement on television rental charges.

Mr. Benn: This company has made no approach to my Department regarding these adjustments to its charges. I have, however, arranged for enquiries to be made.
My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and I have agreed that,


in view of the widespread public interest in this subject, it would be appropriate for a general examination of the structure of costs and charges in the industry to be undertaken by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be considerable satisfaction with that Answer and we await the outcome of the investigations?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying this. There have been a number of letters about it. Some difficulties have arisen because charges which were raised before 20th July came up only when individual rental arrangements became due for renewal and, therefore, not all the cases which have been brought to my attention have indicated a rise in charges since July.

Mr. Biffen: The Minister says that he has not been approached by this company. Will he none the less confirm that at law there is absolutely no requirement whatever on this company to have informed the Government of its proposal to increase charges?

Mr. Benn: That is perfectly correct, but since a Question was tabled about it I explained that I had not been approached by this company but was making inquiries. There is no confusion at all about the legal position here.

Mr. Gardner: When my right hon. Friend is undertaking this study, will he also make a study of the type of literature which is being issued by television rental companies to their customers about increased prices? I am sure that he will agree that this amounts to little less than political propaganda and that some of the figures are very doubtful indeed.

Mr. Benn: I am not making this inquiry. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and I are referring it to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Those increases in rental which have come to our attention have always been below that which would have been justified by the taxation changes which were permitted.

NATIONAL FINANCE

Bates v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue

Mr. More: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the observations of the House of Lords in the case of Bates and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on 8th December, 1966, what steps he will take to correct the apparent injustice of the present law.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): The observations to which the hon. Member refers are being considered.

Mr. More: Does not the Chancellor think that this is something of a scandal? Fifteen years ago attention was drawn by the House of Lords to the unsatisfactory state of the law. In those 15 years, nothing has been done.

Mr. MacDermot: I am not prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures, but it is perhaps better that I reserve comment until our consideration of those observations is completed.

Mrs. Thatcher: While the Financial Secretary is considering this case, would he also consider whether he should publish the basis upon which the Inland Revenue has been invoking these Sections and the basis on which it has left them alone? He will recollect that it has not invoked Sections 408 and 411 on all occasions.

Mr. MacDermot: Again, I do not accept what the hon. Lady says. There are different interpretations of this Section which have been advocated by various people, and the Inland Revenue has never sought to interpret the Section in the way in which some people have suggested it can and should be and criticised the Section consequently.

Portland Beach (Removal of Pebbles)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a direction to the Crown Commissioners to bring to a speedy end that contract which enables pebbles to be removed from Portland beach.

Mr. MacDermot: The contract in question ended on 31st December last.

Mr. King: Is renewal of the contract under discussion, as apparently it has not yet been renewed? If so, will the hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to see that it is not renewed and bear in mind that there is real danger to coastal defences and to people's houses in that area? The Crown Commissioners have not checked in the past on the amount of pebbles removed or on the place from which they are being removed.

Mr. MacDermot: The Crown Commissioners are anxious to see that sea defences are not put at risk. They have asked the local authority for its views. They are awaiting them before deciding whether to permit further removals.

Overseas Expenditure

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made with his plans for reduction of Government spending across the exchanges by £100 million; and whether this reduction will now be achieved during the current financial year.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now give details of the £100 million reduction in Government overseas expenditure for 1966–67 announced by the Prime Minister on 20th July last; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dickens: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been achieved in effecting the reduction of £100 million in Government overseas expenditure in 1966–67, announced on 20th July last.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 18th January.—[Vol. 739, c. 398–400.]

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does the Chancellor recall that these cuts were described six months ago as a firm programme? Why are they still completely in the dark? Can he tell us whether he now anticipates that there will be any increase or any reduction in the rate of current Government expenditure across the exchanges in 1966–67 by comparison with 1965–66?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. I am not ready to give an answer to the second part of the question. As to the first part, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said that it was proposed to give a progress report on this matter when the White Paper is published in a few weeks' time.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Could the Chancellor confirm the Prime Minister's assurance last July that this £100 million cut in overseas expenditure would consist of new cuts and not be related back to last year's Defence Review and other items announced or envisaged before the review of 20th July?

Mr. Callaghan: That is a very detailed question. Broadly, these are new cuts. As in the case of some of the difficult negotiations now going on, there is no doubt that the cuts resulting from the discussions which are taking place and which are made public will have a profound effect on the economy of certain countries and must be carried out with care and the minimum of dislocation.

Mr. Dickens: Does the Chancellor accept the view of Mr. Fred Catherwood that heavy overseas expenditure has been a major cause of the slow economic growth of this country since the war? Will he give the House an assurance that he will work towards a defence budget of not more than £1,750 million at 1964 prices in 1970, as this is in accordance with current Labour Party policy?

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot answer a question about the 1970 defence programme this afternoon, even if it was my responsibility. As to the first part of the question, quite clearly Government expenditure overseas is very heavy and has been growing. This Government have restrained it and in due course will cut it back, and it must have a hampering effect on growth. I would not attribute the—I will not say "total failure", because that would give the wrong impression—I would not attribute the slow rate of growth of this country purely to that.

Mr. Barnett: Is the saving intended to include the saving from United States spending on U.S. Forces transferred from France? If it is, as it was originally intended that by 1969–70 the saving of


£100 million would have been there anyway, what is the corresponding increase that there will be in defence expenditure?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better put that Question down or wait for the progress report which is coming in about three weeks' time.

PAYMASTER-GENERAL

Ql. Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will now give the Paymaster-General further Departmental responsibilities about which he will answer in the House.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I have been asked to reply.
Not at present, Sir.

Mr. Marten: Would not the First Secretary agree that it is really getting rather unsatisfactory that a Minister should be answerable to Parliament for nothing and that Parliament should not be told anything about what he does? Would he consult with the Prime Minister and perhaps ask him if he might tell us a little more about this intriguing Minister?

Mr. Stewart: Parliament has been told a great deal about this. I should add that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister regrets very much that he is not able to answer the hon. Gentleman personally today, but, if the hon. Gentleman would like to table a further Question on a date which would enable the Prime Minister to reply in person, he would be delighted to do so.

RHODESIA

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister what official correspondence he has had with Mr. Smith; and if he will make a statement on the Rhodesian situation.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had no correspondence with Mr. Smith since the talks on H.M.S. "Tiger" and I have nothing to add to the Answer

he gave on 19th January to Questions about Rhodesia.—[Vol. 739, c. 648.]

Mr. Wall: As it is now clear that mandatory sanctions, without the cooperation of South Africa and Portugal, will not bring down the Smith Government in the short-term, anyhow, can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the Government's policy with regard to the extension of sanctions to Rhodesia's neighbours and what effect that would have on our economy, for which he is largely responsible?

Mr. Stewart: I do not accept the first premise of that supplementary question. The remainder of it is therefore hypothetical in the highest degree.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Governor is being used for correspondence or oral conversations between the Prime Minister and Mr. Smith?

Mr. Stewart: There has been no correspondence with Mr. Smith since the talks on H.M.S. "Tiger", and, indeed, all previous contacts were under the aegis of the Governor. It is possible at any time for a lawful régime in Rhodesia, if there were a return to legality, to get into touch with this Government.

Mr. Heath: Questions were raised with the First Secretary last week about the activities of the World Health Organisation in Rhodesia. It now appears that that organisation had projects being planned before U.D.I. to deal with malaria control and mother and child care. There was also the question of a medical fellowship at the university. These projects were abandoned at the insistence of the British Government, apparently. Can the First Secretary confirm that that is the case and, if it is, can he not look at the position again? As the British Government are in any case supporting the University of Rhodesia, quite rightly, surely projects of this kind ought to be able to go ahead?

Mr. Stewart: It is not the case that these projects have been abandoned at the insistence of the British Government. Before the illegal declaration of independence, the World Health Organisation proposed to send a malaria eradication


team to Rhodesia. After the illegal declaration of independence, the organisation consulted Her Majesty's Government, who said that the team should proceed, and Parliament was so informed. It was at the end of last year that we learned that the World Health Organisation itself had decided that it could not let the team proceed because it saw difficulties about the negotiation of privileges and immunities for its members. That means that, in general, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is that the World Health Organisation should be able to carry out its function, but the fact that there is an unlawful régime in Rhodesia makes it difficult for it to do so. It is there that the responsibility lies.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the First Secretary for making the first point. Can he also confirm that, from the point of view of the British Government, there is no objection to the World Health Organisation going ahead with these projects?

Mr. Stewart: There is no objection from our point of view. The organisation itself, unfortunately, has found that the existence of an illegal régime makes it very difficult for it to do so.

VIETNAM

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to meet the President of the United States of America to discuss the war in Vietnam.

Mr. Will Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to meet the President of the United States as soon as possible to discuss the developments in the war in Vietnam.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has made to President Johnson about the bombing of civilians in Hanoi by American military aircraft.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
We have maintained close contact with the United States Government at all levels and on all aspects of the recent situation in Vietnam. My right hon. Friend does not think a special meeting is necessary at present.

Mr. Winnick: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that recent visitors and correspondents in North Vietnam have reported a completely different state of affairs about how the war started and is progressing than the usual American stories? Would the Government now consider supporting publicly the request of the Secretary-General of the United Nations that American bombing should stop as the first essential step to getting peace and negotiations going?

Mr. Stewart: I would remind my hon. Friend, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made quite clear, that we supported the three points made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations together; that we deplore all the slaughter that is going on in Vietnam, but that it is neither useful nor possible to make a condemnation of one part of this matter alone.

Mr. Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's persistent refusal to take any new initiatives over the bombing in particular increasingly makes the Prime Minister's declaration of dissociation last August look like a grizzly charade? The Governments of New Zealand and Australia have troops committed in Vietnam, whatever I and some of my hon. Friends think about it. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what they think about the escalation of bombing? They may have more influence, because at least they are supporting the Americans with their lives and not with their mouths.

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that it would be proper for me to answer for the Governments of Australia and New Zealand. I think that the position taken by Her Majesty's Government on the earlier bombing episode was made quite clear. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, there is no need to restate that position. We have repeatedly, on a great many occasions, made attempts to get the fighting stopped, and it will not be possible to get the result that everyone wants to See—an end to the slaughter—unless there is a conference and an agreement all round to stop the fighting.

Mr. Rankin: How can my right hon. Friend talk about stopping the war when


he is supporting the policy of the United States in carrying on that war and in bombing women and children in Hanoi? Would he not rather now support the demand of the universities of Great Britain to withdraw our support from the United States and act as mediator in stopping the war instead?

Mr. Stewart: I saw the appeal to which my hon. Friend refers. It advances the proposition that, if this country were to criticise the policy of the United States in the way that they wish, it would help us in acting as mediator. But we have to notice that a great many different countries and parties, many of whom have strongly condemned the United States, have tried to act as mediators, and have been as much rebuffed as we have.

Mr. Hastings: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever attempted to check on the proportion of questions put from his own side critical of the Americans on this issue compared with those critical of Hanoi? Would it not be about 99 to 1 per cent.?

Mr. Michael Foot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a growing number of Americans are agreeing with the kind of questions put on this side of the House? Will he look again at the claim, made by him today and by the Foreign Secretary a few days ago—that the Government support U Thant's proposals? To many of us, the Government seem to misrepresent them. Will he publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the proposals put by U Thant so that we may see that these demand support for unconditional and unqualified cessation of American bombing?

Mr. Stewart: There is no doubt about what the proposals are. The point of difference between my hon. Friend and the Government is that the Government take the view that these proposals have to be taken together. We do not share the view that a unilateral condemnation of American action will be helpful or promote peace.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that President Johnson has said that the participation of the P.L.A. would not be an insuperable obstacle to the holding of a peace conference? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore advise

the Foreign Secretary that, in any future peace initiative, he should include the P.L.A. as a necessary participant in peace talks?

Mr. Stewart: In what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said last week, he showed himself cognisant of this point. I think that it is now generally agreed that, if there were willingness on behalf of Hanoi to go to a conference at all, the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would not present an obstacle.

Mr. Ogden: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that any peace settlement in Vietnam would have to have the prior approval of the Chinese Government? Does he think it realistic in present circumstances to press for this in view of the conditions inside China?

Mr. Stewart: There are obviously a great many difficulties obstructing a settlement in Vietnam, not least the one my hon. Friend has mentioned. But the first step in a settlement must be a start of negotiations or talks of some kind. The offer which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made to facilitate such a conference or, if that seems a possible way to do it, to recall the Geneva Conference, still stands. It is not any unwillingness on the part of the British Government or indeed on the part of the United States Government that prevents talks starting.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: Are the Government considering giving any assistance to the Australian and New Zealand forces in Vietnam at present?

Mr. Stewart: This question has been asked and answered many times. It is not the intention of the Government to send troops to Vietnam. It is known that civilian help of certain kinds is being given and this is being continued.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Dr. Dunwoody: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent exchanges with other European leaders about Great Britain's entry into Europe.

Mr. Boston: asked the Prime Minister if he will now give further


details of the series of high-level talks he is having with European Governments about Britain's possible entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
As regards my right hon. Friend's discussions with the Italian Government, I would refer my hon. Friends to the Answers he gave to Questions on 19th January.—[Vol. 739, c. 643–7.]—As regards the further visits he is making, together with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, to other European Heads of Government, I would ask my hon. Friends to await the reports which will be made to the House in due course.

Dr. Dunwoody: While realising that discussions are at a very delicate and sensitive stage at this moment, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can give an idea as to the date on which we can expect a statement along these lines?

Mr. Stewart: The dates on which the various visits are to be held are known. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will do the best they can to keep the House informed after the visits.

Mr. Boston: Would my right hon. Friend accept that no doubt all right hon. and hon. Members welcome the cordial reception given to the Prime Minister's speech in Strasbourg yesterday? On a particular passage in that speech, can my right hon. Friend say to what extent these high-level talks are being used as a means of sounding out West European leaders on ways of extending and developing contacts, especially in trade and other ways, with East European countries?

Mr. Stewart: I am sure that the House will agree with what my hon. Friend said about the Prime Minister's Strasbourg speech. Relations between West and East Europe are, of course, one of the topics that comes into this question but I do not think that I should go further than that at present.

CIVIL SERVICE (FULTON COMMITTEE)

Mr. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister what is his policy regarding the implementation of the proposals for the

reform of the Civil Service made to the Fulton Committee by the Executive of the Labour Party.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
The Government's policy on all these matters will be formed in the light of the Committee's report which my right hon. Friend hopes to receive at about the end of the year.

Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that evidence submitted by the National Executive of the Labour Party contains a grave accusation against civil servants which is much resented, because the Prime Minister and some of his Cabinet colleagues are members of the National Executive. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to dissociate himself and his colleagues from the offensive suggestion that civil servants often deliberately conceal their activities from Ministers?

Mr. Stewart: I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) is overstating the case, but in fact the Prime Minister made it clear in a television interview recently that he did not share the view that was put forward in that evidence.

Mr. Hastings: Has the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary read the comments of civil servants about the Leader of the House as reported in the Sunday Telegraph.

Mr. Stewart: I sometimes think that those who claim to know the views of unnamed civil servants are really the equivalent of the astrology columns one finds in the less pretentious newspapers.

INTEREST RATES (DISCUSSIONS)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. BRUCE-GARDYNE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of Finance Ministers at Chequers from 21st January to 22nd January and also on the basis on which invitations were extended, explaining in particular why an invitation was not extended to the official responsible for interest rate


policy in the United States of America the Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Bank.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like now to reply to Question No. 50.
My discussions with the Ministers concerned with financial policy in the United States, France, Germany and Italy showed that there is a general desire to see interest rates in some of the leading centres reduced. Circumstances in the five countries vary considerably and there are also differences in the nature of the responsibilities of the Ministers in this particular matter. However, there was agreement that within these limits we should co-operate in such a way as to achieve our objectives. This was a small and informal meeting of Ministers. Meetings of Central Bank governors are held fairly frequently.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was unaware that he was going to answer this Question at the end of Question Time? Apart from that, is he also aware that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York was first informed of this meeting, apparently, in the newspapers, although he is the official in charge of American interest rate policy? Does the Chancellor really think that this is the best way to get the right sort of climate in reducing interest rates internationally.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman was not informed that I was to answer this Question at the end of Question Time. But I must say that when I was a young Member of the House it was regarded as one's duty to be present at Question Time if one had put down a Question. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was here."] If he was here, then he has no complaint, has he?
As to the rest of his supplementary question, it is not my obligation to inform the governors of the Central Banks of other countries, and I certainly do not feel that I should do so. Indeed, there would be complaint if I did.

Mr. Shinwell: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in the course of the discussions with his opposite numbers, the question of an increase in the price of gold was raised and its relation to

international liquidity? Has he considered the possibility that if some people get their own way in relation to an increase in the price of gold it would have a detrimental effect on those who suffer from very low fixed incomes?

Mr. Callaghan: The last sentence of the communiqué said that no other question was dealt with at the meeting. That means no questions other than the question of interest rates, so I do not think the rest of my right hon. Friend's supplementary question arises.

Sir C. Osborne: Is the Chancellor aware that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish him well in attempting to get low interest rates, especially for industry? But will he bear in mind the other aspect, that in industry today liquidity is improving but production is going down, and that a mere reduction in interest rates will not solve our problems?

Mr. Callaghan: There are a number of aspects of the problem of getting the growth in the economy which is essential, and this is one step to securing that end. But it is not the only step.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we on this side welcome any initiative to reduce interest rates, whether informal or official?

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I think that that is the view taken generally not only by this country but by the other countries concerned.

Mrs. Thatcher: As there have been many different interpretations of the significance of the talks, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be unwise to expect any dramatic results from a meeting at which the representatives could commit neither their Governments nor the Central Banks? What influence, if any, have these talks had on his own decision about interest rates here?

Mr. Callaghan: I think the hon. Lady would be the most surprised person in this House if I gave an answer to the last part of her question. As to the first part—the Ministers were, of course, in a position to commit their own Governments but, as I made it clear in my Answer and as the communiqué pointed


out, the relationships between Central Banks and Governments in various countries differ. It was for that reason that the communiqué was carefully phrased. As to whether anything dramatic can happen—what I would hope to see would be a steady downward progress, undramatic, from the very high level of interest rates reached last autumn.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Since only six months ago the Chancellor and the Prime Minister were saying that putting up these interest rates to such a high level would solve all our problems, what has happened in the last six months to bring about this change?

Mr. Callaghan: I would be deeply interested if my hon. Friend would send me the quotation that he is referring to.

Mr. Tilney: Would not the Chancellor agree that one of the best ways to reduce interest rates to the Government would be to exclude Government stocks from Capital Gains Tax?

Mr. Callaghan: No. I think that it would have only a marginal effect, if any.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend really saying that a change in the price of gold would have no effect on interest rates?

Mr. Callaghan: I was not aware that that was the question put. The question put was related to Governmen bonds, as I understood it.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he says he hopes to achieve can probably best be achieved through a substantial increase in the formation and supply of capital, by which the whole range of Government policy is substantially affected?

Mr. Callaghan: There are two factors making up the level of interest rates. One is the domestic side of the economy and the other is the possibility of international competition for money. It was with the latter aspect of the matter that we were concerned on Saturday and Sunday and on which there was general agreement about the path we should follow.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out to

the Chancellor, I received no prior notice that this Question would be answered at the end of Question Time, although it so happened that I was present when he answered it. Had I not been present, this Question could not presumably have been asked. How is it that a Minister can answer a Question in these circumstances? What is the position?

Mr. Speaker: The question of whether an hon. Member is informed by the right hon. Gentleman is not a matter of order but a matter of courtesy. On the other point of order—if the right hon. Gentleman had sought to answer the Question at the end of Question Time and the hon. Member had not been here the Question could not have been answered.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because there might be some implied reflection in what you said about lack of courtesy, may I draw your attention to the fact that we made very rapid progress in Questions today? This was an Oral Question and might well have been reached if the Prime Minister's Questions had been finished. In those circumstances would you regard it as the duty of a Minister to leave his seat when the Prime Minister's Questions are on and go and tell another Member whom he sees walking out of the Chamber that he should stay?

Mr. Speaker: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in what I said I meant no reproof at all. All I was stating was that the Chair can rule on questions of order but that on questions of courtesy it cannot.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer know perfectly well, because of the number of Questions down to the Prime Minister today, that his was hardly likely to be reached? Is it not more than likely, since this is the second week running that he has appeared at the Box alongside the First Secretary, that he has taken the opportunity just to make sure that his place of No. 3 in the Government order is maintained?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Could you clarify what you said, Mr. Speaker, because is it not a fact that if there is a


Question on the Order Paper, whether for Oral or Written Answer, the Minister can always take that Question and answer it?

Mr. Speaker: I am advised by the Clerk that there is some doubt about the Ruling I gave about the hypothetical circumstance in which a Minister decides to answer a Question at the end of Question Time and the hon. Member is not there to put it. I will give a firm Ruling on that tomorrow.

Mr. Ronald Bell: So that we may have this matter clarified, Mr. Speaker, would you bear in mind, when giving consideration to it, the obvious difficulty that the Minister might have answered the Question before he realised that the hon. Member was not present? Would you further consider what the position is if an hon. Member, thinking that his Question has not been reached for Oral Answer, withdraws it by going to the Clerk at 3.30 and perhaps leaves the Chamber? In those circumstances, whatever your Ruling on the first matter, would it be in order for the Minister to answer the Question?

Mr. Speaker: I shall give consideration to every point, including that which the hon. and learned Member raised.

Mr. Callaghan: Would you also bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I did not rise until you called me? I therefore assume that if any information was given to the Table about the Question being withdrawn you would not have called me.

Mr. Younger: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had wished to be certain of answering the Question today, could he not easily have given you notice earlier today that he wished to answer it, whether it was reached or not? Was it not therefore an unnecessary discourtesy to my hon. Friend that he was not given any warning that the Question would he answered in any case?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has merely stated forcibly the point which is before the House and on which I promised to rule a little more formally tomorrow.

MALTA (REDUCTION OF FORCES)

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Herbert Bowden): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on my recent visit to Malta in connection with the proposed reductions of our forces there.
It was stated in last year's Defence White Paper (Command 2901) that we proposed to enter into consultations with the Government of Malta, in accordance with Article 6 of the Defence Agreement, for a reduction of British forces there in the next few years. My noble Friend Lord Beswick initiated these consultations in Malta last August when he put forward proposals for reducing our forces to Defence Review levels by the end of 1968. In the light of the strong reactions of the Malta Government and of subsequent representations made in London by the Maltese Prime Minister, Her Majesty's Government concluded that the proposals should be modified in order to reduce their impact on the Maltese economy, principally by deferring the withdrawal of British Army units for two years until 1970.
The revised proposals envisage the withdrawal of Her Majesty's ships based on Malta and the disbandment of a second R.A.F. squadron during the current year, the ending of British responsibility for the Royal Malta Artillery during 1968, and the withdrawal of both British infantry battalions in 1970. At the end of the run-down one R.A.F. squadron would remain and a range of defence facilities would be retained. As a consequence of these reductions, British defence expenditure in Malta would by 1970 fall by about a half from its present level of £.12½ million a year. The number of British Servicemen would be reduced from the present level of about 4,300 by about two-thirds by the end of 1970.
I visited Malta from 12th to 17th January to continue our consultations and to present these revised proposals to the Malta Government. I had a series of meetings with the Prime Minister and his advisers and also had discussions with leaders and representatives of many sections of Maltese opinion. I explained that the reduction of our forces in Malta was part of a worldwide redeployment


of our defence effort, the object of which was to secure the most efficient use of the resources available to us. It would make a significant contribution to worldwide economies which we are determined to make, without in our view affecting our ability—or our determination—to fulfil our obligation under the Defence Agreement for the defence of Malta itself.
We recognised that the run-down of our forces would create serious problems for Malta, particularly during the early years. It was in order to lessen the impact on the Malta economy and in response to representations made by the Malta Government that we were now proposing to phase the run-down over four years instead of two. These revisions meant, for example, that in 1969–70 the level of employment would be more than 2,000 higher and service expenditure in Malta more than £3 million higher than under our previous proposals. These changes, which were not justified on purely defence grounds, represented a considerable sacrifice of savings in defence expenditure which we could otherwise have achieved. I also referred to the exceptionally high level of aid, running at about £18 per head a year which, despite cuts elsewhere, we were continuing to provide for Malta. I offered our co-operation in measures to alleviate the consequences of our run-down.
The Government of Malta stressed the serious economic difficulties and heavy unemployment which they contended even our revised proposals would cause for Malta, particularly during the first two years. They also maintained that with our revised force levels we should be unable to honour effectively our obligations to assist in the defence of Malta under the Defence Agreement. They claimed that we were in breach of the Agreement in failing to consult them properly on these matters in advance. Many other expressions of disquiet at the economic effects of the run-down were made to me.
A summary of the views of each side is contained in the joint communiqué, copies of which I have placed in the Library. I undertook to report the reactions of the Malta Government to Her Majesty's Government but discouraged expectations of further changes in our proposals. After considering my report, Her Majesty's Government have con-

firmed, with regret, that they cannot offer any further changes in their proposals for the run-down and must now proceed to put these into effect. I have so informed Dr. Borg Olivier in a personal message.
While Her Majesty's Government do not deny that even the revised proposals will cause difficulties for the Maltese economy, we believe that these will be only temporary. In the longer run, Malta's economic prospects are good; industry and tourism are expanding and the dockyard is a valuable asset. I hope that our aid can help Malta to surmount these short-term problems and lay the foundations for future prosperity in the island.
I cannot conclude without a warm personal tribute to the Maltese Prime Minister and his colleagues who received me with unfailing courtesy despite the difficult mission we had come to perform. One cannot visit Malta without being conscious of the great good will which exists there for Britain and I have every hope that this good will, which is born of over 150 years of close association in peace and war, will survive the present difficulties.

Mr. Maudling: These are serious problems both for our defence expenditure and our obligations to the people of Malta. The Opposition would wish to have an opportunity to discuss them in greater depth than can be done in response to a statement after Questions.
In the meantime, may I ask three questions? First, does not this setback to the economy of Malta come at a critical time in the expansion of Malta's industry and tourism? Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the revised proposals providing more employment than the original proposals, but can he tell us what is the estimate of what level of unemployment will be reached in Malta at its peak under the revised proposals? Thirdly, can he say what savings these proposals will bring, first, in the total defence budget of the United Kingdom and, secondly, in the balance of payments of the sterling area as a whole?

Mr. Bowden: I accept that this is a serious setback to the Maltese economy, but we should not be unduly pessimistic about it because, as I have said in my statement, Malta is doing extremely well with tourism and extremely well in the construction industry—hotels are going


up rapidly—and there is some industrial development. One ought not to assume that because there will be, as there is bound to be, increased unemployment as a result of this rundown, which will be higher during the first two years, that everyone who is displaced will in fact be out of work for a very long period, because many of them will be picked up in the now expanding tourist industry. It will interest the House to know, for instance, that the Maltese have been finding about 1,500 additional jobs a year over the last two years.
As for the unemployment figures; the present position is that the British Services employ about 2,500 locally enlisted Maltese Service men, 400 of whom are in Germany with the R.M.A., and about 7,800 civilians. By the end of the rundown, those figures will be 750 locally enlisted Service men and 3,000 civilians, which is a reduction of about 6,500 at the end of the rundown.
As I have said in my statement, the saving will be from an expenditure of about £12,500,000 at the moment to rather less than half of that at the end of the four-year period. What has to be borne in mind is that while the saving is not as great as it would have been if it had been made outside the sterling area, nevertheless there is a saving in keeping a battalion in this country of about £1 million compared with keeping the same battalion in Malta.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my second question. Would he be kind enough to do so, if he can? What do the Government calculate will be the level of unemployment in Malta at the peak as a result of these measures?

Mr. Bowden: I tried to indicate that it is impossible to say. If everyone who is displaced is out of work, then, of course, the level of unemployment in Malta will be the current level plus 6,500.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while there will be a welcome for the fact that we are reducing what many regard as nineteenth century military commitments, on political and economic grounds it would have been preferable if these had been concentrated in the Far East and not in the European theatre? Secondly, will not the unemploy-

ment figure in Malta as a result be about 20 per cent.? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Malta has shown more loyalty and steadfastness to this country in time of war and is it not, therefore, extraordinary that no statement has been made about the amount of aid which will be given by the Ministry of Overseas Development to compensate for what will be a shattering blow to the economy of this very loyal member of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Bowden: I am dealing only with Malta in the present statement, but there will be defence savings in the Far East and many other theatres throughout the world where we have troops. The reply to what the hon. Gentleman said about the percentage of unemployment is that if everyone displaced became unemployed, unemployment, we understand, might reach about 13 per cent. I forget the hon. Gentleman's third question.

Mr. Thorpe: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the overseas development aid which his right hon. Friend is prepared to give to compensate for the measures now being taken?

Mr. Bowden: The Financial Agreement under the 1964 Defence Agreement will be continued. That Agreement has seven years still to run. Overseas aid for Malta will run at approximately £5 million a year under that Agreement. We are prepared to consider with the Maltese Government during the time that the rundown is taking place what other ways we can help, with technical assistance and anything we can do to assist during this period.

Mr. Driberg: While all of us, on this side of the House anyway, welcome any defence cuts—the most drastic cuts possible in defence costs—is my right hon. Friend none the less aware that we realise that there is a dilemma here, since nobody wants to create massive unemployment in a small island to which we owe a great deal? Can he, therefore, say whether, apart from alternative employment in new industries and tourism, the Maltese Government have developed any adequate social security services yet to provide for the unemployed? Can he also consider modifying a little further the provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act?

Mr. Bowden: There will, of course, be redundancy payments, the rates of which will be dependent on whether the civil servant concerned is established or non-established. That is provided under legislation already in existence. There will be redundancy payments on discharge from the Royal Malta Artillery. The figures for emigration from Malta have been falling. They were averaging about 7,500 a year over a number of years, but last year they were 4,500, which is a very good augury and a happy indication that Malta is making progress. The quota of vouchers to entitle Maltese to come to this country is, as far as I recollect, about 1,000 a year, and the quota has not been fully taken up.

Sir H. Harrison: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that all infantry troops are to be withdrawn over four years? Is not that unwise? Infantry troops can do jobs which technical troops cannot do. I would have thought that it would have been better to leave an infantry battalion where it was popular and wanted rather than to bring the men back to this country where, as I understand it, the Army is having to buy houses at very high cost because of the lack of married quarters here.

Mr. Bowden: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite correct. It is the intention to withdraw two infantry battalions at the end of the four years and not before. The original proposal was to withdraw them at the end of two years. As I have said, there is a distinct saving if the infantry battalions are brought back to this country, although it is not as high as it would have been if they had been in a non-sterling area. It is, nevertheless, considerable.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the unique dockyard facilities at Malta and the U.S.A.'s naval responsibilities in the Mediterranean, has there been any suggestion of Malta giving repair and supply facilities to any units of the U.S.A. fleet?

Mr. Bowden: I could not answer that question without notice, but I can tell my right hon. Friend that, while not completely "out of the red", Malta dockyard is now doing extremely well under its present management. It is doing an excellent job, and I would regard it as one of Malta's best assets. I hope that the problem about it can be settled quickly.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately what order of capital cost was allowed by the Government on taking this decision to rebuild in Britain barracks and married quarters to replace the very modern and recently constructed barracks and married quarters in Malta in which troops are now accommodated? Secondly, what alternative areas do the Government have in mind for the anti-submarine and air-sea warfare training in clear weather which now takes place in Malta?

Mr. Bowden: It will be necessary to provide some additional barrack accommodation in this country as a result of bringing troops home, not only from Malta but from elsewhere. As I have already said twice, there will be a saving. I should like notice of the second question, which is a purely military question, unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman would prefer to address it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that both in written form and in interview I put forward some detailed proposals for educational ways in which facilities in Malta could be used both to do with training colleges and with school ships? Was any consideration given to them?

Mr. Bowden: Both these matters are under consideration. Last week I had the opportunity of seeing one of the school ships, which was under repair in the Malta dockyard. The question of teacher-training in Malta is being investigated.

Sir W. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that when he went to Malta and talked with the Prime Minister without giving him more notice than, I believe, 24 hours, although there was an arrangement for consultations between the two Governments, he did not discuss the future of quite the most important thing in Malta—the dockyard? Why has not he answered my Question, which was, after all, put down for today, which asks what is being done about the dockyard, and the possibilities for the future there? There is an immense possibility of development in Malta and Her Majesty's Government and the Bailey Company seem to be quite incapable, after four years, of coming to an agreement.

Mr. Bowden: The hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. In fact, I discussed the Malta dockyard with the Prime Minister, with the Leader of the Opposition and with the trade unions when I was in Malta. In my view, they were all of the same opinion as I am, that the quicker there is a settlement of this problem the better it will be for Malta, because, as I have said, this is the one asset which could do a great deal for that country.

Mr. Mayhew: How far are the Government cutting commitments and how far are they simply cutting resources? Would my right hon. Friend explain what will be the defence rôle for the resources which remain? Will they, for example, have responsibilities under the Anglo-Libyan Treaty and under N.A.T.O. as well as for the defence of Malta?

Mr. Bowden: Concerning the Malta side—and that is what I made the statement about—we are quite happy and confident that our commitment under the 1964 Defence Agreement will be fully met by the residual forces we are leaving there and by the changed method and changed mobility of troops and aircraft which may be necessary to get there in case of need. At present, as far as one can see any foreseeable threat, we are well in a position and determined to carry out the defence side of the 1964 Defence Agreement which can be done without these additional forces. I should perhaps remind the House that after the rundown at the end of four years there will still be about 1,400 British Service men in Malta.

Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of us on this side of the House think it somewhat ironical that 25 years after giving Malta the George Cross we are stabbing its economy in the back in this way? Would he give consideration to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles)? Is there not something rather stupid about taking troops from good barracks and bring them back to England where the barracks are bad and increasing the housing shortage? Should not the right hon. Gentleman look at this matte- again? Does not he consider tourism to be necessary in Malta and would not a steady economy there help tourism?

Mr. Bowden: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to think that on only one side of the House was there deep feeling and real affection for the people of Malta. There certainly is on this side of the House, and I share it. But wherever it is necessary to make defence cuts and savings, which in the aggregate will amount to a considerable sum, there is bound to be some disruption of the economy. We hope that the steps which we have suggested will help—that is, phasing this over a longer period, the advice which we think we can give, the setting up of a steering committee, the additional work which can be provided if the dockyard goes ahead, as it is doing. Tourism is booming. This is a gem in the Mediterranean to which people are going in many thousands for their holidays, which I hope they will continue to do. We have all these things in mind. We have no desire, and I am sure that no one in the House has any desire, to damage the Maltese economy more than is absolutely necessary.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Would the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that Malta is one of the few remaining independent Powers which welcomes the presence of British troops? With about 50,000 British troops in the Far East, does it make sense to "knock" the economy of this small island, which has defended us, when the return of these troops to this country could be phased over a longer period to alleviate our problems instead of buying thousands of houses when there is a desperate housing shortage in Britain? Secondly, what will be done about the Royal Malta Artillery? These officers and men have had a raw deal at the hands of successive British Governments both in pensions and pay.

Mr. Bowden: I have answered the first question on barrack accommodation. On the second question, we hope that there will be facilities for those members of the Royal Malta Artillery who wish to do so to join British forces where there are vacancies. Others may prefer to accept their payments and gratuities and be demobilised. What I am sure it would be a mistake for us to do would be to endeavour to keep the R.M.A. in existence simply for the sake of keeping it in existence.

Mr. Heath: Would the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the House


note that we shall want to go into this matter in greater detail, particularly concerning the timing and phasing of this operation so that any difficulties for the economy of Malta can be kept to a minimum? We shall also want details of the savings which the Commonwealth Secretary says will take place so that we can assure ourselves that these are not just paper savings but genuine savings on the whole defence budget.

Mr. Bowden: I recognise that the House may want an opportunity to discuss this matter, having given a little more time to considering the figures which I have presented to it. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt, through the usual channels, consider how this can be done.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that Great Britain has a special responsibility to the 6,500 Maltese whom he is to sack and that the ordinary redundancy payments will be quite inadequate as many of these people have given a lifetime of service to the British Services?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot add to what I have said. The question of redundancy payments is under discussion and will be discussed with the Maltese Government. The rate of redundancy payments will depend on years of service, which is usual.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We must move on.

Sir W. Teeling: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? As far as I can remember, over the last twenty years, if a Member tables a Question—in fact, there were two in this case, one by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and one by myself—no Minister has ever made a statement on it. My Question has not been answered at all.

Mr. Fisher: Nor has mine. I was not allowed to put my Question.

Mr. Bowden: I could have made a statement at the end of Questions in reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question, but I thought that, because of the practice of the House, which the hon. Gentleman probably understands, namely, that the Opposition spokesmen are not given a copy of the statement in reply to a Question, it would be very much better to make a statement and to give the Opposition a copy of it.

Sir W. Teeling: I should like to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has indicated dissatisfaction with the statement as an answer and wishes to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (No. 2)

4.9 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose a sentence of 30 years' imprisonment for the murder of police or prison officers.
Hon. Members will be relieved to know that I do not seek to raise in any shape or form the controversy which we have had in the House about capital punishment. Whether we like it or not, and many of us do not, we must face the situation as it is.
Much time has been given in this House to discussing the future and the welfare of those who are found guilty of committing murder. I think the time has now come to consider the possible victims and what steps we can take to protect them. I believe that throughout the country there is widespread anxiety and national concern at crimes of extreme violence which break out from time to time.
I do not know whether the House knows what the present position is, but, generally speaking, it is this, that a prisoner, provided he behaves himself, is entitled to one-third remission of his sentence. In the past, until very recently, any man who was reprieved from the death sentence, who had committed murder, as a general rule, I think I am right in saying, usually served a sentence of between nine and 11 years. That has become an accepted fact, unfortunately, within the criminal community, and is recognised as such. Now today the position is this, that if that person becomes involved in the first degree in a case involving—shall we say?—armed robbery of £50,000 or £70,000, he can be pretty well certain he will receive a sentence within the region of 15 years. Take one-third remission from that, and it means he serves 10. However, if he decides, when he is cornered, to fight his way out in an utterly ruthless fashion, regardless of the consequences, and somebody, very often a police officer, dies as a result, a life sentence will then be imposed on him, and in his mind, having regard to the practice in the past, he will serve nine or 10 years, which will be precisely the same as if he gives himself up when he is cornered.
That is a situation which, I hope, has been altered since by the Home Secretary,

but it is certainly not clear in the mind of the public, and it is certainly not clear in the mind of the criminal community. There was a time, when the death sentence was in force, when the old, accomplished criminal would never go out on a robbery if guns were going to be taken. Today, one comes across cases where one finds exactly the reverse: they will not go out unless there are going to be guns there, in order that they can make good their escape. Equally, I think the House will agree there is little to deter prisoners who are serving a life sentence from committing violence against prison warders in the course of making their escape, regardless of the effects of that violence.
I do not believe that murder figures mean very much. I shall tell the House why. Frequently, murder is reduced by a jury to manslaughter; frequently, murder is reduced in the courts by the fact of a plea of diminished responsibility under the recent Act being accepted, and that becomes manslaughter; and frequently, murder is reduced, as a prison officer at Brixton told me, by the use of modern drugs. He told me that the number of people whom, in the last 10 years, he had saved from death as a result of modern drugs which are available, is quite enormous. If those people had died, instead of the defendants being charged with grievous bodily harm, they would have been charged with murder. I do not believe that figures presented in statistical form mean very much.
We all know that violence is on the increase. We all know that people go out on these bank raids and wage snatches armed with sawn-off shotguns regardless of the consequences because they honestly believe that if they kill somebody a life sentence will mean in practice only 9, 10 or 11 years because of what has happened in the past. I would be the first to agree that a 30-year statutory sentence is a savage sentence indeed, and I think provision should be made that if the learned judge of assize who tries the case is able to find special reasons in law for reducing it, then of course the Bill would enable him to do so, but we are dealing with hard, cruel, ruthless men; people who go out, quite cold-bloodedly, armed, and will shoot a police officer down, an unarmed man, before he even raises a finger against them, and to meet that


situation we must have a deterrent which is both hard and practical.
The few minutes available to me this afternoon are not sufficient in any way to discuss this complicated subject in its entirety, and I do hope, for this reason, and having regard to the tremendous responsibility which this House owes to the police for the splendid work they are doing, and the loyalty and courage which they are showing in devotion to their duty, the House will allow this Bill to be presented.

Mr. R. T. Paget: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member rises to oppose the Motion?

Mr. Paget: Yes. In my submission the Bill is wholly misconceived. There was an anomaly which provided that the Home Secretary should have power to release on licence where there was a sentence of life imprisonment or on the same terms where there was an imprisonment for a fixed sum. That anomaly is being removed by Clause 36 of the Criminal Justice Bill and so we shall

have got rid of that anomaly. The Home Secretary's powers to release on licence in the case of a fixed term sentence will be precisely the same as those in the case of a life sentence.

So what the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill would do would be to provide that the sentence in the case of the killing of a police officer on duty should be a lesser sentence than in the case of any other murder. In the case of a policeman being killed, then the accused would be a free man in 30 years. In the case of any other murder, he would never be a free man but could at any time be recalled from his licence. I did not gather from the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech that this was an end which he had in mind, or that he intended to say that killing policemen was a lesser offence than killing anybody else. This is in fact, the effect of the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 185.

Division No. 246.]
AYES
[4.19 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Drayson, G. B.
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Awdry, Daniel
Eden, Sir John
Kitson, Timothy


Baker, W. H. K.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Batsford, Brian
Eyre, Reginald
Lambton, Viscount


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Farr, John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bell, Ronald
Fisher, Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Forrest, George
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Fortescue, Tim
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biffen, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Biggs-Davison, John
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Longden, Gilbert


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Black, Sir Cyril
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Blaker, Peter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Body, Richard
Goodhart, Philip
Maginnis, John E.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mawby, Ray


Braine, Bernard
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gurden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Burden, F. A.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Campbell, Gordon
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Murton, Oscar


Cary, Sir Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Channon, H. P. G.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Clark, Henry
Hawkins, Paul
Nott, John


Clegg, Walter
Hill, J. E. B.
Onslow, Cranley


Costain, A. P.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Crawley, Aidan
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Crouch, David
Hordern, Peter
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Crowder, F. P.
Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Peyton, John


Digby, Simon Wingfield






Pink, R. Bonner
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Ward, Dame Irene


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Wills, Sir George (Bridgwater)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ridsdale Julian
Teeling, Sir William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Russell, Sir Roland
Temple, John M.
Woodnutt, Mark


Scott, Nicholas
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Worsley, Marcus


Sharples, Richard
Tilney, John
Wylie, N. R.


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Younger, Hn. George


Sinclair, Sir George
Vickers, Dame Joan



Smith, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stainton, Keith
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Dance and Mr. Currie.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ginsburg, David
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Allen, Scholefield
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Moyle Roland


Anderson, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Murray, Albert


Archer, Peter
Gregory, Arnold
Oakes, Gordon


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
O'Malley, Brian


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Oram, Albert E.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Orme, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oswald, Thomas


Barnett, Joel
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bence, Cyril
Hattersley, Roy
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hazell, Bert
Paget, R. T.


Bessell, Peter
Hilton, W. S.
Palmer, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooley, Frank
Park, Trevor


Booth, Albert
Hooson, Emlyn
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hoy, James
Pavitt, Laurence


Boyden, James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bradley, Tom
Hunter, Adam
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Brooks, Edwin
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Randall, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rankin, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Redhead, Edward


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Reynolds, G. W.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Chapman, Donald
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Richard, Ivor


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Judd, Frank
Rose, Paul


Crawshaw, Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Dalyell, Tam
Ledger, Ron
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ryan, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Delargy, Hugh
Luard, Evan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lubbock, Eric
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Driberg, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Snow, Julian


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacColl, James
Storehouse, John


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Macdonald, A. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Eadie, Alex
Mackie, John
Swingler, Stephen


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mackintosh, John P.
Taverne, Dick


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Ellis, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow. C.)
Thorpe, Jeremy


English, Michael
McNamara. J. Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Ennals, David
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ensor, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wallace, George


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Weitzman, David


Finch, Harold
Marquand, David
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mason, Roy
Wilkins, W. A.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Foley, Maurice
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Millan, Bruce
Winnick, David


Forrester, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fowler, Gerry
Molloy, William
Woof, Robert


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Moonman, Eric



Freeson, Reginald
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garrett, W. E.

Mr. Ogden and Mr. Victor Yates.

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL BILL

As amended (in the standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 27.—(CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS, ETC.)

4.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move Amendment No. 94, in page 25, line 32, at the end to insert:
'() The Minister shall not make regulations under the said section 40 of the said section 41 except after consultation with the Corporation and such organisations as appear to him to be representative of persons concerned'.
This is a simple Amendment which would require the Minister to consult the Corporation and the trade unions before making pensions regulations under Section 40 of the 1949 Act, as revived, or regulations under Section 41 for the payment of compensation to employees of the Board or a publicly-owned company who suffer loss as a result of nationalisation, the dissolution of the Board or the reorganisation of the industry in accordance with a report submitted by the Corporation under Clause 4 and under directions given by the Minister under Clause 5. It follows an Amendment which was pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) in Committee. In speaking on that Amendment, the Minister said that he would consider taking the matter further on Report, and this Amendment is in pursuit of that undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28.—(RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF IRON AND STEEL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.)

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 144, in page 25, line 46, to leave out from 'name' to 'and' in line 2 on page 26 and to insert:
'within two months after vesting date'
This Clause re-establishes the Iron and Steel Arbitration Tribunal which had been set up under the 1949 Act and whose functions came to an end. Those

functions are to be revived under the Bill and under the provisions of the 1949 Act which are revived by Schedules 3 and 4. The Arbitration Tribunal will have a number of very important functions, all, I think, of a transitional nature.
4.30 p.m.
The Clause provides that the tribunal must be re-established as the Iron and Steel Arbitration Tribunal, and it shall be re-established—I come now to the words to be deleted by the Amendment—
on such day as the Lord Chancellor may by order appoint for the purposes of this section.
As the Bill stands, therefore, the Government have a complete discretion as to how long should elapse between vesting date and the establishment of the tribunal. This is wholly wrong. The matters falling to be decided by the Arbitration Tribunal are fairly complex but they are matters which those concerned will wish to have settled as swiftly as possible.
The most important matter is the determination of compensation. It is the intention that Government stock in satisfaction of the compensation should be issued on vesting date, and, if there is any delay, there will be payment of interim interest. Because it is of the utmost importance that the compensation stock should be issued exactly when the Government wish to issue it, or as nearly as possible then, any question of dispute about it should be settled as rapidly as possible. The provision that, if such dispute cannot be settled between the stockholders' representatives and the Minister, the question has to go to the Arbitration Tribunal requires that the Arbitration Tribunal should be in existence as soon as possible after vesting date.
The Tribunal could well be re-established before vesting date, as soon as the Bill is passed. But we have proposed to limit the discretionary period within which the tribunal must be established to two months after vesting day. Disputes will hardly have got under way until then or, at least, they will not have gone much further than being ready for hearing, and the tribunal should then be in existence.
The Government are anxious to press the Bill forward. The Minister said yesterday—we took it with a handful of salt—that the Government have always


felt that the Bill should be pressed for-ward with as much haste as possible. We are concerned to see that, as soon as they have it on the Statute Book and the various time tables under the Bill start rolling, there does not thereupon enter into the conduct of affairs a dilatoriness which would be wholly regrettable. As the Bill stands, the Lord Chancellor's discretion, is wholly at large and there is no time limit whatever.
I have mentioned compensation. There are other matters which may be of more relevance to firms which are not being taken over. There are various provisions in the Bill, which were described in Committee as common form provisions in nationalisation Acts, for giving the Corporation power, as it were, to claw back property which has been unreasonably disposed of by one of the companies being taken over during the period between 4th November, 1964, the date when the then First Secretary of State made his announcement immediately after the election, and vesting date. If companies have unreasonably disposed of properties or made imprudent transactions, there are provisions whereby the Corporation can claw the property back, it can nullify transactions, it can surrender leases, and so forth.
There are many such provisions in the Bill, and all disputes on them must be referred to the Arbitration Tribunal. These are matters which will affect people who may not otherwise be concerned with the nationalisation of the steel industry, people who may have bought property in good faith but who find nevertheless that it has to be returned to the Corporation under one of those provisions. It is most important that these matters should be determined as swiftly as possible, and for this reason, too, it is essential that the Arbitration Tribunal be set up within a finite time.
I need not enlarge on the case. It is a matter of administration after the Bill has become law. We want no dilatoriness to slip in at that stage in the Government's handling of the matter. Miserable and hateful as the whole Bill is, we think it right nevertheless that the machinery set up under it should work as efficiently and as expeditiously as

Mr. Freeson: If I speak briefly on this matter, it is not out of disrespect for the points made by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin). Except for his concluding remarks, there is no essential point of difference between the two sides of the House on this question. It is the Government's view that the Bill as it stands would provide for better expedition than the Amendment, which would require the re-establishment of the Arbitration Tribunal within two months of vesting date rather than on a specific date appointed by order of the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of the Clause.
For this reason and not for any of the reasons suggested by the hon. Gentleman, we find the Amendment not acceptable. We would prefer to allow the Clause to stand as it is to allow such an order specifying a date to be issued.
I give the assurance that, to a very large degree, the Amendment is pushing at an open door. It is possible—it is not for me to say at this stage—that the re-establishment of the tribunal could take place before vesting day. The Amendment would preclude this, and I hope, therefore, that it will not be pressed.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If I may speak again, with leave of the House, I do not follow the hon. Gentleman when he says that our Amendment would preclude earlier establishment of the tribunal. All we say is that it should not be later than two months after vesting day. However, the hon. Gentleman has said that it is, or it could well be, the Government's intention to establish the tribunal even before vesting day. If he will go a little further and say that he will draw this matter to his right hon. Friend's attention so that an undertaking might be given in another place, after the matter has been looked at again to see whether it is possible to meet the point, I think that we need waste no more time on it.

Mr. Freeson: I give that undertaking.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32.—(EXEMPTION OF THE CORPORATION AND PUBLICLY-OWNED COMPANIES FROM BUILDING CONTROL ACT 1966.)

Mr. John Peyton: I beg to move Amendment No. 95, in page 27, to leave out lines 35 to 39.
I can move this Amendment with a one-word speech.
Why?

Mr. Freeson: In contrast to my comments on the last Amendment, I think that I must speak at somewhat greater length in response to the hon. Gentleman's very short question.
As I see it, the effect of the Amendment would be to delete this Clause, which was inserted as a result of a Government Amendment in Committee, and exempts the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies from the system of control introduced by the Building Control Act, 1966. I could speak at some length on this, but the essential point here is that, whereas prior to the Building Control Act, 1966, there were no general or specific controls—at least for quite a number of years—on the building industry, or on developers generally, there have been in the nationalised industries, or within the nationalised industries coming under the Minister, and indeed in certain other respects so far as Government activities are concerned, very tight controls over investments which involve building activities. It is this kind of control which is being continued and would have been continued even if there had been no Building Control Act applicable generally in the economy.
That, briefly, is the answer. It is unnecessary to require this double control when we already have the control within the nationalised industries.

Mr. Peyton: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that answer, which, oddly enough, is rather on the lines that I had expected. I think that appearances matter. When the Government introduce a great panoply of controls such as we know are dear to the hearts of the Socialist party, I look with a certain amount of jeolousy and suspicion at the suggestion that nationalised industries, or for that matter anyone whom the

Government may particularly favour, should be exempted from those controls. This is not because I have a vindictive attitude to the nationalised industries, or that I wish to get in a dig at them at every possible opportunity; nothing of the kind. It is merely that when a statute like this is established as the law of the land it is most undesirable, from every point of view, that any particular organisation or organisations should be excluded from the operation of that Statute.
I think that ours is a justifiable complaint, and I am rather sorry that my exceedingly brief, but nevertheless relevant, speech has not elicited a more convincing explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. The mere fact that there is a measure of control by the Government over the investments of the nationalised industries is not itself adequate. For financial reasons there is ample control over private enterprise building and investment from their own boardrooms and managements. It is quite another matter to exclude the nationalised industries from a statute which this House has solemnly, —in this case not in its wisdom; I think rather foolishly—decided to put on the Statute Book.
Though it be the one I expected, I find the hon. Gentleman's explanation very unsatisfactory indeed. The hon. Gentleman is not personally to blame; it is the Government's responsibility.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Effectively, what the Government are saying is that the nationalised steel industry may contract out of the form of building control which is to be applied to the private enterprise steel companies, notwithstanding the fact that the Government sector, the National Steel Corporation, will directly be in competition with those private steel manufacturing firms.
Why should there be one set of rules, Ministerially inspired, for the nationalised sector, and another set of rules, perhaps judged by different standards—because it will be a different body exercising the controls, it will not be the Minister of Power exercising them—for the private sector of the industry? The Corporation should have to apply through the machinery which applies in respect of building controls for the whole of private industry.
We are creating a situation whereby the Minister of Power will judge the efficacy or otherwise of an application for building in excess of a specified sum for the investment in the nationalised sector under the Ministry of Power, the electricity industry, the degree of control operated is very scant indeed.
4.45 p.m.
My second point is that the Ministry of Power has loosely controlled the capital investment programmes of the nationalised coal, gas, and electricity industries for the past 20 years, but it has not done so very well, and it does not do it in detail. If the Parliamentary Secretary has any doubt about that, he might read, if he has not already done so, the publications on nationalised industries by former civil servants who worked in the Ministry for many years. In those publications it is brought out with the greatest authority that in the case of the biggest investment in the nationalised sector under the Ministry of Power, the electricity industry, the degree of control operated is very scant indeed. This is my second point.
My third point, and I think the most valid of all, is that we have said all the way through the Bill, with a good deal of support from the Treasury Bench, that the intention is that the steel industry shall be operated as a commercial enterprise. If it is operated as a commercial enterprise, it should submit to commercial standards, and if commercial standards are to be applied on a profit-earning basis in the private sector of the steel industry, which admittedly is no more than 7 or 8 per cent., then the same standards should be operated in the nationalised sector of the industry, which is of the order of 93 per cent.
Is the Ministry of Power in a position to judge by commercial standards what is a desirable investment in building? The answer is that of course it is not. Civil servants never are.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: It has not the resources.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he says, it has not the resources to do it, nor have civil servants the necessary training to do it. This is what is wrong with bureaucracy.

They follow a set of rules in a rule book, and they advise the Minister accordingly, all within a generic and overall total sum of money which is impressed on them by the Treasury.
The commercial viability of an enterprise cannot effectively be judged by the bureaucracy, nor have politicians the wherewithal to judge it. Has the Minister of Power—or indeed his Parliamentary Secretary, or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology—the commercial acumen, the foresight, the prescience, necessary to judge whether a particular building enterprise, possibly involving millions of £s, is a desirable venture?

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Power has not yet given approval to the capital investment programme of the Central Electricity Generating Board, which is normally approved by the end of the year? Does this not show that the Ministry is falling behind in its work, without having this additional burden imposed on it?

Sir G. Nabarro: That is so. The capital investment programmes of the nationalised industries were the principal cause of the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming to this House on 2nd May last and asking for an overall surplus in the mammoth sum of £1,007 million to cover below-the-line expenditure, most largely the below-the-line expenditure of the nationalised industries. There is enormous extravagance today in the nationalised industry to which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) referred, electricity generation, where I believe the Minister has called for sums of money three or four times greater than he actually needs. I can only raise this point in passing. It would be out of order to explore it in depth.
I give it as an example because, in my judgment, it demonstrates that the Ministry of Power does not have the facilities, nor its civil servants the training, to adjudge whether projects are commercially viable and enterprising and are likely to earn profits in the future. Having regard to all these circumstances, is it right that the Corporation should contract out—that is what it is—of the penetrating standards of examination which are applicable to the private sector of the steel industry?
I have no confidence whatever in the analytical capacity of the Minister in financial matters and my hon. Friends should at this juncture say, as a matter of principle, that Parliament requires closer scrutiny than a single, global, generic and empirical annual figure for the capital of the steel industry approved by the Minister, including building consents, remembering that once they have been approved they will be unchallengeable by this House.
On a similar point last night, when my hon. Friends were pleading for the affirmative procedure to be adopted, the Minister said, "We all know that the Minister can be challenged in the House of Commons; the Opposition can put down a Motion of censure". We do not want to do that on matters of capital expenditure authorised by the Minister for individual industries. That would make a mockery of the highest form of Parliamentary attack. We want Parliamentary instruments and methods of scrutinising what the Minister is authorising, but we will not have them according to the Bill as drafted.
I hope that the Minister will not reply by simply saying "No" but will endeavour conscientiously to meet the valid arguments that have been adduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and I evolved a better system of controlling the expenditure of the nationalised industries, and while it took us 10 years, from 1951 to 1961, to make a small dent in this procedure, we are far from having enough annual Parliamentary control over matters of this sort.
I hope that my hon. Friends will not laugh this off as a minor Amendment simply because my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil was so magnanimous in moving it; simply by using the word "Why". I have in the past used many thousands of words to justify the principle of the Amendment. Unless the Minister is more forthcoming, I hope that my hon. Friends will, to ensure the control of investment on a proper Parliamentary basis, vote on this issue.

Mr. George Forrest: Considering that, in addition to the right hon. Gentleman, there are five hon. Members on the benches opposite, I congratulate

the Minister on the amount of support he has managed to muster on this occasion. At no previous time during this discussion has he had so much support.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman making a maiden speech?

Mr. Forrest: I am not. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to comment on anything I have to say he should rise to his feet and say it Having listened to the whole of the discussion, I cannot understand why, since hon. Gentlemen opposite are so in favour of nationalisation, they do not bother to listen to what is being said on the subject.

Sir G. Nabarro: They are in the Tea Room.

Mr. John Rankin: With the Tories.

Mr. Forrest: I came to the House last night armed with notes for a couple of speeches in favour of an Amendment which stood in the name of a good Scottish hon. Member. On that occasion hon. Gentlemen opposite stated that although they had a great deal of sympathy for my hon. Friend's good Unionist proposal, they would not under any circumstances vote against the Government. For this reason we should oppose the Bill at every point.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): Speak for Britain.

Mr. Anthony Barber: No insults to Ulster, please.
The Minister will have listened to the reasoned remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest) and I would not like to fall foul of the Chair by elaborating his point about lack of support for the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary's answer, though courteous, was completely unsatisfactory. When this matter was debated in Standing Committee on a new Clause moved by the Minister—the provision which the Amendment seeks to delete—the right hon. Gentleman said:
…there is already, in the nationalisation statutes, power in the hands of the Minister to control capital development."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th December, 1966; c. 2377.]
However, this part of the Bill is concerned with any building project of a


kind covered by the Building Control Act, 1966, which costs more than £50,000. Will the Minister deal with matters of this kind—with every relevant building project by the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries costing more than £50,000? My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) pointed out what we know to be the truth; that the Minister does not concern himself with matters of detail of this kind. Instead, they are considered by junior officials in the Ministry. The Minister accepts responsibility, but he would never know about a project as minor as this and we in the House of Commons would not have an opportunity of questioning him about it.
The Minister has repeatedly said that the new steel industry is to be operated on commercial lines. In that case, let it be operated subject to the same advantages, but also to the same multifarious and manifold Government hindrances, suffered by the private sector. There is only one way to ensure that this will happen, and that is by supporting the Amendment.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: I was in two minds about the Amendment until I listened to the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest), who not only convinced me of the strength of the case but also appeared to convince the Government Front Bench, because I noticed that when he resumed his seat the Minister and his colleagues cheered.

Mr. Marsh: Since I came into the Chamber rather late, would the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) succinctly précis the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest)?

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman adduced a complicated argument. I do not think I have the experience of public speaking to summarise it in a way that would be intelligible to the Minister. I suggest we leave it to HANSARD; and we will read with interest the important words uttered by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Forrest: On a point of order. Surely the people of Mid-Ulster are as entitled to be represented in this House as the people of Orpington.

The Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): That is not a point of order, although the hon. Gentleman's observation is quite correct.

Mr. Lubbock: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not take anything I have said as being critical of his speech. I listened to him with the greatest respect and interest and look forward to reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of his remarks.
As the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) pointed out, the Minister said in Committee that there already existed in the nationalisation Statutes power for the Minister to control capital development. That is perfectly true, but I submit that different criteria will be applied by the Minister in approving the capital development programmes of the Corporation than will be applied by the Minister of Public Building and Works in interpreting the Building Control Act, 1966.
The main purpose of the 1966 Act is to ensure that the load of work on the construction industry in areas where it is already overloaded is relieved so that building firms may concentrate their energies on essential projects, particularly housing, whereas the Minister, in giving his consent to building projects which would otherwise fall under the Act, will be thinking purely in terms of economics and about whether the investment in buildings will bring about for the Corporation the sort of return he thinks is necessary.
We shall, therefore, have one set of rules for the private sector and a completely different set—which might be good in themselves—for the public sector. If the Building Control Act, 1966, is to mean anything and if the load is to be taken off the construction industry in areas where it is overloaded, the same rules should be applied to both sectors. That being so, I support the Amendment and hope that the Minister will, in view of the strong arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, accept it.

Mr. Freeson: I regret that I cannot accept the arguments, and we must resist the Amendment. A good deal of misunderstanding has been injected into the discussion. I do not wish to extend it widely over the question of building control any more than other hon. Members have done but will simply touch upon it.
It is quite wrong to suggest that by excluding the steel industry from control under the Building Control Act, 1966, a double standard is being applied, as was indicated by all hon. Members opposite who have spoken with the honourable exception of the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest).

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Should not the hon. Gentleman have said "with the exception of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster"?

Sir John Eden: He could have said "with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster".

Mr. Freeson: Hon. Members opposite have made the point clearly. There is no question of a double standard here.
Over a good many years, ever since nationalisation was introduced for a number of industries, there has been close Government control over investment policies in these industries, just as there has been over a wide range of public expenditure and activity in building construction. One example, is local authority housing. A wide range of educational expenditure, and so on, can be added to the list. Such control has already existed. It continues to exist.
Neither in the case of the Ministry of Housing, the Department of Education and Science nor of any other nationalised industry are the activities concerned with building brought within the scope of the Building Control Act, 1966, for the very reason that they already were under control. The whole object of the 1966 Act was to provide some kind of control in this field outside the public sector.
Having made those general observations on the purpose or philosophy of the 1966 Act, I come back to the steel industry—

Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman made an error, I think, a moment ago when he said that the Building Control Act was not to apply to the steel industry. It is not to apply to the nationalised part of the steel industry, but it will apply to the private sector. The important point is that there is here direct competition between comparable companies of a sort which does not apply to education and the other sectors which the hon. Gentle-

man has mentioned. It is for this reason and in the light of what has been said that I must advise my hon. Friends to divide in support of their Amendment.

Mr. Freeson: There still continues to be a misunderstanding here. While it is true that different Acts of Parliament apply in the field of control, the fact remains that there will still be control. What we are saying is that that part of the steel industry which will become the public sector, should operate under the same conditions as other nationalised industries which are already subject to control in this way.

Mr. Forrest: Where are the hon. Members on the Government side who represent steel constituencies?

Mr. Freeson: Perhaps we can meet afterwards in the Lobby and discuss matters further.
I stress that there is no question of double standards. Controls already exist in the nationalised sector. They will exist in the nationalised sector of the steel industry just as they have been applied in different ways under the Building Control Act, 1966, which also is selective in its application. That, however, is a matter for another Minister and not for us this evening to go into detail.
The Building Control Act, 1966, provides that no building works except those for housing, industrial building and laboratories and any in development districts should proceed without a licence where the projects concerned are likely to cost £50,000 or more. All the nationalised industries as listed in the Schedule to that Act were exempt from this requirement. We suggest that the same thing should apply equally with regard to the steel industry.

Sir G. Nabarro: The Parliamentary Secretary is not dealing with the point put forward by myself or the point made by any of my hon. Friends. I have with me the Schedule to the Building Control Act, 1966. It delineates all the nationalised industries. None of those industries, however, has a private sector against which to compete. That is the first essential point. The second essential point is that none of those industries is a manufacturing industry such as steel, which


has to compete both in the United Kingdom and overseas. It is, therefore, wholly fallacious to compare the position of the National Steel Corporation with, for example, the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board.

Mr. Freeson: I need not repeat all the points I have been making. I repeat, however, that exactly the same type of control is being applied, or would be applied by the Ministry of Power, in this sector as is already being applied in other nationalised sectors and is being applied by the Ministry of Public Building and Works in the private sector.

Mr. Peyton: The Parliamentary Secretary need not go into this at length. The question which he is not facing is our objection that this control which is imposed on private industry is imposed by different people for different purposes from different points of view. It is no good the hon. Gentleman going into the fact that these errors have been committed before. We did our best to discourage the Minister from pursuing this doctrine, which I can only describe as the perpetuation of past errors. There is nothing that

Division No. 247.]
AYES
[5.12 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Concannon, J. D.
Fowler, Gerry


Albu, Austen
Conlan, Bernard
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Freeson, Reginald


Alldritt, Walter
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gardner, Tony


Allen, Scholefield
Crawshaw, Richard
Ginsburg, David


Anderson, Donald
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gourlay, Harry


Archer, Peter
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dalyell, Tam
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gregory, Arnold


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Barnett, Joel
Delargy, Hugh
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bence, Cyril
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Harper, Joseph


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dobson, Ray
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bidwell, Sydney
Doig, Peter
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Binns, John
Driberg, Tom
Haseldine, Norman


Blackburn, F
Dunn, James A.
Hazell, Bert


Boardman, H.
Dunnett, Jack
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Booth, Albert
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Henig, Stanley


Boston, Terence
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Eadie, Alex
Hilton, W. S.


Boyden, James
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hooley, Frank


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Horner, John


Bradley, Tom
Ellis, John
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
English, Michael
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Brooks, Edwin
Ennals, David
Howie, W.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ensor, David
Hoy, James


Brown, Bob (M'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Finch, Harold
Hunter, Adam


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Hynd, John


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Foley, Maurice
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Chapman, Donald
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Coe, Denis
Ford, Ben
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Coleman, Donald
Forrester, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'bn&amp;St. P'crae, S.)

the hon. Gentleman can say to justify it. We had better divide.

Mr. Freeson: No doubt hon. Members opposite want to divide, but if they keep on repeating points in error I must deal with them. I will not elaborate the point because I have dealt with it, but I repeat that the same kind of control will apply in the public sector of the steel industry as will be applied by the Ministry of Public Building and Works over the private sector.
The adequacy of the controls was questioned. I can only say that we in the Ministry of Power are just as capable of providing as adequate a control in the public sector as will be exercised by the Ministry of Public Building and Works in the private sector, and which hon. Members opposite would like us to follow for the nationalised steel industry.
I have covered the points as well as I have been able. There is no double standard. There will be no inadequate control. We must resist the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Strechford)
Moyle, Roland
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Murray, Albert
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Neal, Harold
Slater, Joseph


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Norwood, Christopher
Small, William


Judd, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Snow, Julian


Kenyon, Clifford
Ogden, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
O'Malley, Brian
Steele, Thomas (Dumbartonshire, W.)


Lawson, George
Oram, Albert E.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Ledger, Ron
Orbach, Maurice
Stonehouse, John


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Orme, Stanley
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lipton, Marcus
Oswald, Thomas
Swain, Thomas


Lomas, Kenneth
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Swingler, Stephen


Loughlin, Charles
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Symonds, J. B.


Luard, Evan
Paget, R. T.
Taverne, Dick


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Palmer, Arthur
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Park, Trevor
Thornton, Ernest


McCann, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tinn, James


MacColl, James
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Tomney, Frank


MacDermot, Niall
Pavitt, Laurence
Tuck, Raphael


Macdonald, A. H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Urwin, T. W.


McGuire, Michael
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Varley, Eric G.


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Pentland, Norman
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackie, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Wallace, George


Mackintosh, John P.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Maclennan, Robert
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Probert, Arthur
Weitzman, David


McNamara, J. Kevin
Randall, Harry
Wellbeloved, James


MacPherson, Malcolm
Rankin, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Redhead, Edward
Whitaker, Ben


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Reynolds, G. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Whitlock, William


Mal1alieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Richard. Ivor
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Mapp, Charles
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wilkins, W. A.


Marquand, David
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mason, Roy
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mayhew, Christopher
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Mellish, Robert
Rose, Paul
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mendelson, J. J.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Winnick, David


Mikardo, Ian
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Millan, Bruce
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Ryan, John
Woof, Robert


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Yates, Victor


Molloy, William
Sheldon, Robert
Zilliacus, K.


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.



Morris, Alfred (Wythershawe)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Mr. Grey and Mr. McBride.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Campbell, Gordon
Forrest, George


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fortescue, Tim


Astor, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Channon, H. P. G.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Awdry, Daniel
Chichester-Clark, R.
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Baker, W. H. K.
Clark, Henry
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Glover, Sir Douglas


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Glyn, Sir Richard


Bell, Ronald
Cordle, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Costain, A. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gower, Raymond


Bessell, Peter
Crawley, Aidan
Grant, Anthony


Biffen, John
Crouch, David
Grant-Ferris, R.


Biggs-Davison, John
Crowder, F. P.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Grieve, Percy


Black, Sir Cyril
Currie, G. B. H.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Blaker, Peter
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Body, Richard
Dance, James
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bossom, Sir Clive
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Braine, Bernard
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Doughty, Charles
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Drayson, G. B.
Hastings, Stephen


Brown, St Edward (Bath)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hawkins, Paul


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eden, Sir John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Bryan, Paul
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Buchanan, Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Eyre, Reginald
Heseltine, Michael


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Farr, John
Higgins, Terence L


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fisher, Nigel
Hill J. E. B.


Burden, F. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hirst, Geoffrey







Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Scott, Nicholas


Holland, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sharples, Richard


Hooson, Emlyn
Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hordern, Peter
Monro, Hector
Sinclair, Sir George


Hornby, Richard
More, Jasper
Smith, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stainton, Keith


Hunt, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Steel, David (Roxburg)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Summers, Sir Spencer


Iremonger, T. L.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Neave, Airey
Teeling, Sir William


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Temple, John M.


Jopling, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Nott, John
Tilney, John


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Onslow, Cranley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kimball, Marcus
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kitson, Timothy
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Knight, Mrs. Jilt
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Lambton, Viscount
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wall, Patrick


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walters, Dennis


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Ward, Dame Irene


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Percival, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Peyton, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pink, R. Bonner
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Longden, Gilbert
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Loveys, W. H.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lubbock, Eric
Pym, Francis
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Maddan, Martin
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wylie, N. R.


Maginnis, John E.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Younger, Hn. George


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Ridsdale, Julian



Marten, Neil
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maude, Angus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. David Mitchell.


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Royle, Anthony



Mawby, Ray
Russell, Sir Ronald

Clause 33.—(LOCATION OF OFFICES OF CORPORATION.)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 96, in page 27, line 44, at the end to insert:
The Corporation shall not, without the permission of the Minister, locate its head office in the Greater London Area.
This is an Amendment to a new Clause I moved in Standing Committee. If the purpose of the Clause is to be put into practice, it is essential that the Amendment be accepted. The Clause provides that
In determining the location of its commercial and administratve offices, the Corporation shall have regard to
where the steel is produced and also to the desirability of distributing major offices throughout the United Kingdom.
It was a serious point I made. I am glad to say that more than half the members of the Standing Committee supported my contention. The Government accepted it. I was distressed to discover that one of the reasons why the Government felt able to accept it was that they believed that there was not much point in the

Clause and that it did not oblige anybody to do anything. We must therefore press the Government by writing a little more specification into the Clause.
I accept that the Corporation must be free to take into account all relevant considerations in making its decision. The Amendment would allow full scope to the Corporation to make what decision it thought fit, except in one limited circumstance, namely, if it were to decide that the headquarters of its organisation should be in the Greater London Area. If the Corporation wanted to locate its head office in Wales, in Glasgow, in Sheffield, in Newcastle, or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, it would be free to do so. The only limitation we are putting on the Corporation is if it were to decide to locate its headquarters in London.
It would be short-sighted, irresponsible and economic madness for the Government to locate this headquarters office in the Greater London Area. If the Corporation were to decide to locate its headquarters in London, there would be a volume of protest from Rutherglen to the Rhondda Valley. The Government's good faith on the distribution of offices


is at stake. This is the first major decision they will have to make on the location of a substantial headquarters of a local authority. The Government's good intentions and good faith will be on trial.
The Amendment should not be necessary, because all the arguments point to the headquarters of the organisation going elsewhere than London. What should the Government take into account? They should take into account, first, where the steel is produced. What are the alternatives? There are 31,000 men employed in steel in Scotland, 57,000 in Sheffield, 59,000 in South Wales, and 39,000 on the North-East Coast. The map which was issued with "Steel Statistics" showing where steel is produced indicates clearly that there is little, if any steel, produced south of a line drawn between the Wash and the Severn. To that extent, the alternatives would seem to be where the steel is produced. I am not making a special pleading for Scotland or for Glasgow. I ask the Government to do what they can to ensure that the offices will be located where the steel is produced.
The second factor the Government should take into account is where the steel is used—in other words, where heavy industry is located. This is certainly not in the Greater London area. The Government should take these factors into account. They should also take into account the desirability of distributing major Government offices throughout the United Kingdom.
On 1st October of last year there were almost 1 million non-industrial civil servants. This is a very substantial number of employed people earning money through the Civil Service. Obviously civil servants must be spread throughout the whole country. What worries me is that the top jobs with the high earnings tend more and more to be concentrated in the Greater London area. This means that the opportunities, the top jobs and the top salaries are not available throughout the country. Scotland has one-tenth of the United Kingdom's total population, yet the only major Government headquarters office, which we will have shortly, is the Post Office Savings Bank, thanks to a decision made by the Tory Government and being promulgated at present.
Emigration from Scotland is now running at 47,000 a year—an all-time high. This figure is increasing. This is worrying in itself. What is more worrying is the quality of those who are leaving. A higher proportion of Scottish young people go to university than in any other part of the country. It is essential that they have opportunities for the top jobs at the top salaries in Scotland. This applies to Wales and to the other development districts. This is why the Tory Government were right to make the decision in principle to distribute major Government offices throughout the country.
I should like to see the Labour Government showing, not only that they pay lip service to this principle, as I know that they readily will, but also that they are prepared to do something about it. The danger is that, because of the concentration of top jobs and top salaries in London, instead of having integrated factories in the regions, we are merely having workshops, while the decisions, the top salaries, and all the rest, are becoming concentrated more and more in the London area. This is happening in private industry as well as in the public sector. Something must be done about it.
For these reasons, we must put the responsibility fairly and squarely on the Government to make this decision, if the Corporation should decide to have its headquarters in the Greater London area. If the Government do not accept this, they will be shirking their responsibilities because, even though we have the Clause, unless the Government are prepared to take some initiative I fear that the headquarters of the organisation, like the headquarters of so many Government organisations, will be sited in London.
Everyone is familiar with the reasons why we do not want more offices to be concentrated in London. This is why the Government have introduced certain Bills affecting the private sector. We want the same principle to be applied to Government offices as well. The tragedy is that, although the Government try to discourage office buildings in our major city centres, when a building becomes vacant it is usually a Government office or a Government-sponsored organisation which moves into it quickly. We ask the Government to take the lead in the distribution of offices.
My final point relates to the simple question of justice. A large proportion of the population of the United Kingdom is situated in Wales. One-tenth of the total United Kingdom population is in Scotland On the North-East Coast there is a high proporation. Surely we are entitled to some share of the major Government offices, of the jobs they bring, and of the opportunities they bring. Unless we have these, the scope of opportunities in the regions will certainly not be the same as it is in the centre.
I want to make this the Government's decision. I do not say that under the Amendment we should prevent the Corporation from having its office in London. There might be such overwhelming reasons in favour of its being sited there that such a decision would be inevitable. However, there should be a thorough examination of all the arguments. This examination should be made by the Government.
I have explained that I am not at all happy with the Bill. It could be the beginning of the end for Scottish steel if the Government bring in differential prices, as with the other nationalised industries. This is why I am absolutely delighted that on this important Amendment, which is of significance to Scotland. the Minister of State, Scottish Office and two of the Under-Secretaries of State are present. This may be a belated indication that the Government are now aware of the desperate dangers to Scottish steel which the Bill presents.
I should like to have the assurance, which the presence of these three Ministers indicates can be given, that the Government are now becoming aware that the Bill could be disastrous for Scottish steel. I want in some way to temper that by ensuring that at least in regard to offices the Government are prepared to carry the responsibility themselves. This is what they should be prepared to do. If they believe in regional development, let them take the responsibility of undertaking a thorough examination of any proposal that the offices be located in London. I fear that the decision on the location of the headquarters might already have been taken. I want to ensure that there will be a thorough examination and a deep study of the interests of the regions in general and of Scotland in particular.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Bence: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) should have listed the Ministry of Social Security at Newcastle-up-Tyne and the Post Office Savings Bank in Scotland as examples of the Government's deciding where commercial enterprises should locate their offices. It is all right for Government Departments to be spread around. They are bureaucratic institutions. They do not have to compete with world industry. They do not have to meet traders and buyers. They do not have to deal with market research. I advise my right hon. Friend to reject the Amendment.
It would be disastrous if a Minister of the Crown made a decision on behalf of a vast commercial enterprise that it should establish its administrative centre on the same principle as we establish Government Departments. I dread to see the day when a commercial enterprise is run and located on the same basis as Government Departments. Furthermore, it would be disastrous if the head offices of the Steel Corporation happened to be located in the vicinity of one of the major steel plants. It is very often the experience that when one has a commercial enterprise with a number of production units it is always best to have the main administrative offices situated other than in the immediate locality of one of them. It is far better for the main commercial and administrative offices to be apart from the different production units of an industry. One could quote dozens of cases through the light engineering industry where that has been fatal.
Great concern would be caused to many people who take the wider view, rather than the parochial one of the hon. Member for Cathcart, if the administrative offices should be located on the decision of the Minister for purely party political cases and not based upon the commercial requirements of the production system or the industry with which that set-up is concerned.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Despite what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has just said, I submit to the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has made a most powerful and incisive point. He


has not asked for what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East implied. He has not asked for such a decision. What he has asked is that it should not be done without the consent of the Minister.
I should have thought that the Government would he bound to accept not only the wording but the spirit of the Amendment. It goes even further than my hon. Friend said it did. If it should be decided to centralise the head office of this new Corporation in London, there would be a deprivation of valuable high quality office employment from the existing centres of the companies affected. To that extent the case is even stronger.
I am sure that my hon Friend is pleased to see certain Scottish Ministers present—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: For the first time.

Mr. Gower: I wish that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs was present to stake a claim for the Principality—and, conceivably, other Ministers concerned.
I hope that the Minister will look at this matter with extreme care. It has been said to be the policy of the Government to resist the development of large office buildings in London in particular and, as my hon. Friend said, they have pressed this on private industry. It would he deplorable if what they imposed upon private industry should be resisted by a great State board of this kind.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East suggested that it would be intolerable for foreign buyers coming to this country, but I would remind him that it is far more difficult for a foreign visitor to get to the City of London than to many places which are just outside London.

Mr. Bence: I thought that I had made the point clear that those who manage the industry should decide the best location for their administrative offices and such things as their market research department. It should be a decision based on the commercial assessment which they make in the best interests of the industry.

Mr. Gower: It would be quite improper in this case. It would be far

better that it should not be done without the consent of the Minister, in view of the great issues at stake, some of which have been referred to by my hon. Friend.
In Standing Committee, the Minister said that he was aware of the importance of this issue. He went on:
I only make the point that no decision has been taken on the siting of the offices of the Corporation. Indeed, within the last two weeks, the Chairman-designate of the Corporation, who has taken this matter very seriously, has met deputations from Cardiff and Sheffield wholly and solely to discuss where the offices should be sited."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th December, 1966; c. 2412.]
I hope that that is a hopeful sign that nothing has happened since he uttered those words to change the position radically. Therefore, as I said in my opening remarks, I hope that he will accept both the wording and the spirit of the Amendment.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Before the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) sits down, can he tell us whether there is anything at the moment which prevents the offices of the Steel Corporation being located in any part of the country, after due consideration? Secondly, may I ask him if he would transfer Steel House in part or wholly, at one fell swoop?

Mr. Gower: In the first place, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart explained that this matter was of such importance that he wanted it to be beyond doubt. I echo those words. The second point does not arise, because here we have a new concentration in a totally different form.

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there not a rule that hon. Members are not allowed to bring lethal weapons into the House? The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) are in deadly peril so long as the right hon. Gentleman goes on swinging his chain round his arm. If it slips, someone will get hurt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: There was a long and heated discussion on these matters during the Committee


stage, and obviously one would not want to listen to all the arguments that were put forward on that occasion. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) had been a member of the Committee—and I have had the privilege of serving with him on a number of Committees—all the indications are that the temperature in the Committee when this matter was discussed would have been even higher. I find it a strange argument coming from him that the head offices of an industrial organisation should preferably be sited some distance from the works. I cannot see the advantage in doing that.

Mr. Bence: I did not suggest that. What I said was that, in the case of an industrial complex with a number of units spread round the country, the decision about siting the market research department and the administrative offices must be that of the managers of that organisation and not one imposed upon them by someone outside.

Mr. O'Malley: If I may say so, that was the second point which my hon. Friend raised, and I shall comment on that briefly in due course. It is certainly true that the decision about where the headquarters of the National Steel Corporation are to be should be that of the National Steel Corporation. It would be wrong, however, for the corporation to take that decision unilaterally, without full discussions with the Minister. In his remarks in Committee, the Minister gave no indication that he expected or desired that such full discussions should take place.
I hope that the debate today will not be parochial. It was not during the Committee stage, because the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) suggested that the headquarters ought to be in Brussels, and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) had an even more novel suggestion and thought that it ought to be in a caravan and move round the country.
I appreciate that this was a serious matter, and some of us did not like it being treated with such levity. Perhaps the unfortunate part of the proceedings in Committee was that, if there was any parochialism, it came from the Minister, who wanted it sited in Greenwich. It

may be that that is the reason why the Minister, apparently, does not intend to reply to the debate and will leave it to his Parliamentary Secretary, because he is an interested party. We ought to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Minister has been making representations to the National Steel Corporation for the siting of its headquarters in Greenwich.
If I may close with one very brief remark, the advantages and disadvantages of the siting of the headquarters of the Steel Corporation either in London or in the provinces, in one of the steel centres, were adequately discussed during the Committee stage. I hope that the Minister will bear the arguments in mind, and that the National Steel Corporation and the Organising Committee, in considering the matter, will bear in mind not only the arguments then put forward but also the feelings expressed on both sides during the course of them.
I believe that the decision should be taken by the National Steel Corporation in conjunction with the Minister, having listened to what the Minister has to say about overall Government policy on regional development and the moving of office employment out of London into the provinces, where often there is a pool of labour and where employment is badly needed. In addition, the Minister should not allow the offices to be in London unless it is demonstrated clearly that there are special reasons why they should be.
5.45 p.m.
I do not want to push this Amendment down my right hon. Friend's throat. I am not taking that attitude. But I hope he recognises that there are very cogent reasons why the headquarters should not be in London. I also know that there is a strong feeling in this House that the Government would be following their own regional policy if these offices were located elsewhere than in the capital.

Mr. Gower: But the Amendment would strengthen the hand of the Minister if the hon. Gentleman pushed it through.

Mr. O'Malley: That is only if the Minister is pushing the case for Greenwich. I do not know whether he is. He may feel inclined to intervene and say what the situation is. Unless there


are very special reasons which can be demonstrated for having the headquarters in London, I hope that they will be sited in one of the great steel complexes.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I support the Amendment. It is straightforward and on both sides of the House there is a good deal of support for the principle behind it. If there are insurmountable difficulties on the practical side, that is another matter. But there is a strong feeling in the country that we have far too much concentration of offices in London, including Government offices, and that when there is an opportunity to do something about it, as there will be in this case, advantage should be taken of that opportunity. For that reason, I hope that the Government will look at the position very carefully.
There is a good opportunity here to do something by siting these offices outside the Greater London area. I am pleased to see two Scottish Ministers on the Front Bench. I hope this is an earnest of their interest in the issue for we know that they are very busy people. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter carefully. From the speeches we have heard in the debate, I cannot recall any practical reason why the Corporation should not have its offices outside the Greater London area.
I do not claim to have the practical knowledge of some hon. Members but there is, I know, a very strong feeling that this is a time when the Government should show their interest in other centres which happen to have strong claims and I put forward the claims of Scotland because Scotland would provide a practical site for these offices.

Mr. Freeson: It might be as well if I intervene now in order to give a general assurance that there is no difference of policy between us. The only issue is whether the Amendment should be accepted, and we do not consider it necessary. Indeed, it could be harmful. The very reference to "head office" makes a false distinction. The point at issue here, both with regard to the steel industry and to dispersal generally, which has been discussed at some length, is where one gets the staff and where one gets the dispersal policy in operation.
The fact that one particular office is called a head office while another office is given some other name is a positive point. One can have a small head office in London while conducting a policy of dispersal. I give a general assurance that the views expressed in Committee are being taken into account very closely both by the Minister and the Organising Committee. In the thinking being given to the future of staffing and office arrangements, both the Minister and the Committee have very much in mind the idea of cutting down on the existing number of staff—2,000—established in London.
It is not for me to say today precisely what the resultant pattern will be as a result of the study being made by the Organising Committee, which will be a matter for report to the Minister, or of the talks on this and other matters going on between the Minister and the Committee. This is a very important point to take into account. The Amendment is unnecessary because we are pursuing the policy that all hon. Members have supported, but it might restrict by its terminological inclusion the very policies that hon. Members are seeking to establish.
I want to stress that there is a constant liaison between the Ministry and the Organising Committee, just as such liaison exists between the Ministry and the other nationalised industries on this matter. The important thing is to seek as far as possible to get dispersal into the right places but not to say whether the head office or the sales office, or any particular department, shall, with or without the permission of the Minister, go or not go to a certain part of the country. The important thing is to get dispersal, and I give the House an assurance that this policy is being and will continue to be pursued.

Mr. Peyton: The Government are greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). He has given them a chance to convert a Clause which consisted of eyewash into something with a little meaning. He has rendered a valuable service to his constituents in Scotland and it is a great pity that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) did not follow him in doing so.
I believe that we can carry this preoccupation with office location too far. There seems something quite indecent about it. In Standing Committee I suggested that perhaps the best solution would be a steel caravan going around the country like a travelling circus. It would have the great advantage that it would presumably discourage the enrolment of a very large and swollen staff.
I have been meditating on this important matter and have arrived at one or two other possible suggestions. One of them I do not put forward very seriously. It is that there should be a winter palace and a summer palace. That sort of conception would be quite in harmony with the general tone of Socialist bureaucracy.
But my real suggestion is that these offices should be located in the most uncomfortable, insalubrious place in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I am not prepared to name it. Perhaps very near to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East would be the answer. But this siting would really discourage a large swelling of the staff such as is only too apt to happen, despite the pious intentions of the Government whenever they introduce this kind of revolting Measure.
One should try to avoid adding to the clutter of London, which has languished under Socialist government for many years and must be one of the world's worst-governed cities in history. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Hon. Members opposite are sensitive on this point. I only threw it out on the spur of the moment and up they all got feeling very cross. They know how painful the truth can be to Socialist Ministers. We are always glad to have proof of the fact. I humbly return to the suggestion I made earlier—that the head office should be located in the most uncomfortable place that can be found in the United Kingdom.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: As a London Member, I fully support the Amendment. It would be the greatest mistake to have the head office of this new Corporation cluttering up our beautiful capital city. We do not want another thousand semi-civil servants in our overcrowded city. If the head office is located in London, all the ancillary offices will be in the Home Counties.
The obvious place for the head office is probably in the North Midlands area, probably around Sheffield, which is a centre of gravity. Equally, the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) is right. We should not have it attached to a steel works—say, on the riverside at Rotherham, perhaps on the site of the old Rotherham steel works. But when one asks the chairman of a nationalised corporation why he has to have his offices in London, he says that he has to be near Whitehall to cook up answers to the Questions. We hope that the steel industry at least will be out of politics for a time and that questions and answers can be sent on the teleprinter.

Mr. Harold Finch: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has put forward a point on behalf of the Midlands and Scotland. But a very large part of the industry is in South Wales—for instance, Richard Thomas and Baldwins and the Steel Company of Wales. The steel industry is very prominent in Wales. I hope that, if anything is done, these offices will go to Wales.

Mr. Barber: During the four years when I was at the Treasury, we set in hand the movement of a number of head and other offices of a smaller character out of London into the provinces and to Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) referred to the movement of the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow, a movement with which I was concerned, and I was delighted with the decision.
My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will know, therefore, that I am in considerable sympathy with the objective of the Amendment. But the location of the head office or any office of the National Steel Corporation should be decided on purely commercial grounds, subject only to such Government policy which is applicable to industry generally. Secondly, I believe that the same considerations should apply as are applied in the case of private enterprise.
6.0 p.m.
Furthermore, I take the point of the Parilamentary Secretary about the meaning of "head office" because, of course, one can have a comparatively small head


office dealing with overseas trade and, outside, the accounts department, the statistics department, the general domestic sales, marketing, production departments, and so on. But I do not agree with him in a number of the points he made. He said that if we pass the Amendment it might restrict the policy of the Corporation. It would only do so if the Minister of Power refused permission to the Corporation against its strong wishes. All those factors are highly relevant.
I want to be brief, because there is still a considerable number of Amendments to get through and we hope to finish this business by about 7 o'clock. But there is one other overriding consideration. In practice we all know that it is inconceivable that the Corporation of a nationalised industry would ever be allowed to locate its head office in any place against the determined opposition of the Government of the day. That is a fact of life, and I have not the slightest doubt that, whether the Amendment is carried or not, if the right hon. Gentleman and his Cabinet colleagues were determined that for policy considerations the Corporation's head office should not be in a particular place, be it London or anywhere else in the United Kingdom,

the head office would not be established there.

It is therefore important to take note of what the Parliamentary Secretary said, that in fact, "There is no difference on policy". That means no difference on policy between that outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart who moved the Amendment with his usual ability, and the policy of the Government. Therefore, the Amendment does little more than to formalise the actual position. If it gives some measure of comfort and encouragement to those people who do not believe that this Government takes a sufficiently robust view of regional policy and the location of offices, there is a lot to be said for passing it.

I have deliberately outlined the case for and against the Amendment. In the light of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that there is no difference in policy at all, and bearing in mind that in practice the Government of the day would be able to veto the location of the head office in a particular place, I believe that my hon. Friend would be right to press his Amendment to a Division.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 270.

Hutchison, Michael Clark
Monro, Hector
Sharples, Richard


Iremonger, T. L.
More, Jasper
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sinclair, Sir George


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stainton, Keith


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Jopling, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Summers, Sir Spencer


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Kimball, Marcus
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Teeling, Sir William


Kitson, Timothy
Nott, John
Temple, John M.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Onslow. Cranley
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Lambton, Viscount
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tilney, John


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wall, Patrick


Longden, Gilbert
Percival, Ian
Walters, Dennis


Loveys, W. H.
Peyton, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Lubbock, Eric
Pink, R. Bonner
Weatherill, David


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pym, Francis
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maddan, Martin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Maginnis, John E.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Marten, Neil
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Woodnutt, Mark


Maude, Angus
Ridsdale, Julian
Worsley, Marcus


Maudling. Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wylie, N. R.


Mawby, Ray
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Younger, Hn. George


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Royle, Anthony



Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Russell, Sir Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Mr. David Mitchell and Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Miscampbell. Norman
Scott, Nicholas





NOES


Abse, Leo
Crawshaw, Richard
Gregory, Arnold


Albu, Austen
Cronin, John
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Allaun, Frank (Salfort, E.)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Afldritt, Walter
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llaneliy)


Allen, Scholefield
Dalyell, Tarn
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Anderson, Donald
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Archer, Peter
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Harper, Joseph


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Delargy, Hugh
Haseldine, Norman


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dewar, Donald
Hazell, Bert


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Barnett, Joel
Dickens, James
Henig, Stanley


Beilenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Dobson, Ray
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Bence, Cyril
Doig, Peter
Hilton, w. S.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Driberg, Tom
Hooley, Frank


Bennett, James (G'gow, Brldgeton)
Dunn, James A.
Horner, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunnett, Jack
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Binns, John
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Blackburn, F.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'cl
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Boardman, H.
Eadie, Alex
Hoy, James


Booth, Albert
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Boston, Terence
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bottomley, Rt, Hn. Arthur
Ellis, John
Hunter, Adam


Boyden, James
English, Michael
Hynd, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Ensor, David
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spento'gh)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Brooks, Edwin
Finch, Harold
Janner, Sir Barnett


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Foley, Maurice
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Cant, R. B.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Johnson, Carol (Lewieham, S.)


Carmichael, Nell
Ford, Ben
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Forrester, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fowler, Gerry
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Chapman, Donald
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Judd, Frank


Coe, Denis
Freeson, Reginald
Kelley, Richard


Coleman, Donald
Gardner, Tony
Kenyon, Clifford


Concannon, J. D.
Garrett, W. E.
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Conlan, Bernard
Ginsburg, David
Lawson, George


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gourlay, Harry
Ledger, Ron


Craddock, Ctorge (Bradford, S.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lestor, Miss Joan



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony








Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
O'Malley, Brian
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Oram, Albert E.
Slater, Joseph


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Orbach, Maurice
Small, William


Lipton, Marcus
Orme, Stanley
Snow, Julian


Lomas, Kenneth
Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie


Loughlin, Charles
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Luard, Evan
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Paget, R. T.
Stonehouse, John


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Palmer, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


McCann, John
Park, Trevor
Swain, Thomas


MacColl, James
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Swingler, Stephen


MacDermot, Niall
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Symonds, J. B.


Macdonald, A. H.
Pavitt, Laurence
Taverne, Dick


McGuire, Michael
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thornton, Ernest


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Pentland, Norman
Tinn, James


Mackie, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Tomney, Frank


Mackintosh, John P.
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Tuck, Raphael


Maclennan, Robert
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Urwin, T. W.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Varley, Eric G.


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Probert, Arthur
Wallace, George


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Randall, Harry
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Rankin, John
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Mapp, Charles
Redhead, Edward
Weitzman, David


Marquand, David
Reynolds, G. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mason, Roy
Richard, Ivor
Whitaker, Ben


Mayhew, Christopher
Robertson, John (Paisley)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mellish, Robert
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Whitlock, William


Mendelson, J, J.
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Mikardo, Ian
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Millan, Bruce
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rose, Paul
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mitchell, R. C. (Sth'pton, Test)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Molloy, William
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Moonman, Eric
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Ryan, John
Winnick, David


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sheldon, Robert
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Moyle, Roland
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Woof, Robert


Murray, Albert
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Yates, Victor


Neal, Harold
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Zilliacus, K.


Norwood, Christopher
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)



Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ogden, Eric
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Mr. McBride and Mr. Howie.

Clause 34.—(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS AS TO PUBLICLY-OWNED COMPANIES.)

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): I beg to move Amendment No. 97, in page 28, line 17, to leave out from 'company' to the end of line 25, and to insert:
'or form, or take part in forming, a company '.
This does for publicly-owned companies what an earlier Amendment did for the Corporation in requiring the Minister's consent for the purchase or acquisition of interests in iron and steel companies as well as in companies not engaged in iron and steel activities. It meets a point made by the Opposition in Committee and I therefore hope that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36.—(FURNISHING OF INFORMATION TO THE MINISTER AND THE CORPORATION.)

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 98, in pave 29, line 1, after 'specified' to insert 'and'.
Before the Bill went into Committee, Clause 36(1), then Clause 34(1), provided for the Minister to collect certain information from Schedule 1 companies, their subsidiaries, any person with property or rights owned on or since 4th November, 1964, by a Schedule 1 company or its subsidiary and every other iron and steel producer.
In Committee, the Government accepted an Opposition Amendment to remove the last group of persons—other iron and steel producers—from the list of those subject to this obligation. The list was shortened by one and it therefore became necessary to insert the word 'and' before the new last item in the list. That is what the Amendment does.

Amendment agreed to.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Barber: I beg to move Amendment No. 145, in page 29, line 28, after 'such' to insert 'iron and steel'.
The two Amendments which are being taken with this, Amendment No. 146, in page 29, line 31, after 'notice', insert:
'(being not less than 28 days)'
and Amendment No. 147, in page 26, line 31, after 'periodically', insert:
'(at intervals of not less than six months)'
are self-explanatory and I need say no more about them. However, I must explain the purpose of Amendment No. 145, which, although superficially of a minor character, is of considerable significance.
Under Clause 36(2), which the Amendment seeks to amend, the Minister has power to obtain from the 200 smaller iron and steel companies which are to remain in private enterprise details of their output and of their capacity not only of iron and steel products, but of anything else which they manufacture, either at present, or as a result of diversification at any time in future.
Whether the Minister should have this power to obtain details of output and capacity of iron and steel products is open to argument and we have already considered that question, but there can be no justification whatever for the Minister taking power to obtain commercially secret information about products which have absolutely nothing to do with iron and steel.
Over the years, many of the 200 private enterprise companies will diversify their activities and it would be an outrageous imposition for the Minister to take power to obtain information from the private sector about products which are wholly divorced from the iron and steel industry. Yet, under the Bill as drafted, the Minister is seeking just that power and, what is more, any person who declines to comply with the Minister's request will be liable to a criminal prosecution. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will think that this is an error in the Bill and will consequently accept the Amendment.

Mr, John H. Osborn: I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. I cannot believe that he wants to have details of the

diversified activities of the steel companies in the private sector.
I have been considering some of the activities of the steel companies in Sheffield, for instance. I am certain that he does not want to know about the ramifications of Jessop-Saville which is a member of the B.S.A. group. There is a well-known company making hand tools and garden tools and other engineering equipment, Spear & Jackson Ltd., which is also a steel manufacturer and I am certain that the Minister does not want to know anything about those activities of that company.
Another well-known company in Sheffield is Edgar Allen whose products range from butt-welded tools to cement machinery—it is engaged in making rotary dryers, electro magnetic chucks and pulverised fuel equipment and has diversified into fans and other equipment for the ventilation of mines. I am certain that the Minister would want to know details only of its steel making activities. Balfour Darwins products include tools and permanent magnets as well as alloy castings. Another well-known company is James Neill and I am certain that the Minister would want to know no details other than about its steel making in its subsidiary, Hallomshire Steel. My own company ventures into fabrications, the manufacture of steel castings, steel extrusions and small tools. Again, I assume that the Minister wants details of iron and steel products only.
The object of the Amendment is to make certain that the Minister will obtain details only of the iron and steel making activities. I sincerely hope that he will accept the Amendment which is in keeping with the views which he has expressed in Committee and on Report. I can see no justification for not accepting it.

Mr. Freeson: The Amendment is acceptable. The Minister needs power to collect forecasts about the private sector's output of and capacity to produce iron and steel products because the development of the steel industry needs to be looked at as a whole and therefore he will need to know about the private sector's plans in assessing the Corporation's development plans under Section 4(2) of the 1949 Act revived. He will also need the information in connection with his control of the private


sector's own development under Clause 13. These considerations arise from the special circumstances of the iron and steel industry and do not apply to products other than iron and steel products. It had always been intended that the Minister's power should be used only to collect forecasts relating to iron and steel products.
The other Amendment briefly touched on by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), Nos. 146 and 147, are not acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 99, in page 29, line 32, at the beginning to insert:
'Subject to subsection (6A) below'.
This Amendment and Amendment No. 100 are purely paving Amendments for Amendment No. 101, which limits the Corporation's power under subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 36 to collect information from representative organisations of the iron and steel industry and persons providing common services for iron and steel producers to a period until two years from vesting date. The Amendment is a pure formality.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 100, in page 29, line 43, at beginning insert:
'Subject to subsection (6A) below'.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 148, in page 30, line 12, after ' officer ' to insert:
'having control of such organisation's records'.
This is a very narrow point but one which I believe the Government will consider with sympathy.
The obligation is placed on companies to make their records available to the Corporation for the purposes of the reorganisation of the steel industry. This obligation is subject to penalties which can be very severe—
a fine not exceeding £50. or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction…a fine not exceeding £200.
The only person who should be subject to the liability to pay fines is any officer of the company who is responsible for the records which will have been called for by the notice served under subsection (3).

To provide that the notice may be served on
such officer of the organisation as appears to the Corporation to be appropriate
might lead the Corporation to serve a notice on somebody who was inappropriate and who therefore might subsequently find himself subject to these penalities in circumstances in which he could do very little about it. It would not be difficult for the Corporation to select the right person on whom the notice should be served. In normal circumstances, in the case of a limited liability company, this is the secretary of the company.
As I say, this is a narrow point, but since penal sanctions are involved we should specify clearly the nature of the person on whom the notice should be served and who, therefore, would become liable to the sanctions.

Mr. Freeson: Certainly the normal procedure would be for such notices to be served on the secretaries of the organisations in question, but I am advised that the Amendment cannot be accepted because the Corporation would not necessarily know who had control of the organisation's records and might have no means of finding out with certainty. It would clearly be sufficient if it were to serve the notice on a responsible officer such as the secretary of the organisation.
There is some uncertainty about the meaning of the expression
officer having control of such organisation's records".
It might be taken to mean a servant of the organisation concerned with records but not with general policy and who had no general power of decision. The Corporation would want to impose a requirement on those with a general responsibility for the running of the organisation and not just those responsible for records to whom such responsibility would have been delegated. The normal procedure probably would be for the secretary of the organisation to receive such a notice.
Because of the difficulties which I have indicated on what has been said to be a narrow point, I ask hon. Members not to press the Amendment.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, it


still seems possible that in the case of a trade association or something of that sort which the Clause covers there might be, through inadvertence or unawareness of the problem, a notice served on, say, a chairman who is chairman for only a year, or a president, or someone who holds a rotating office of that sort who does not have control at all. It is not unreasonable that the Statute should give an indication of the nature of the officer on whom notice should be served.
However, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he recognises that it is the intention that it should be the secretary or director-general, or somebody of that sort, on whom the notice should be served. If he would say that he will consider between now and the Bill going to another place whether it would be appropriate to indicate this, we would not feel it necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. Freeson: Without commitment, we shall consider very carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 101, in page 30, line 13, at the end to insert:
(6A) No notice shall be served by the Corporation under subsection (3) or subsection (4) above after the expiration of the period of twenty-four months beginning with the vesting date.—[Mr. Freeson]

Mr. Speaker: We can consider at the same time the Amendment to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), to leave out "twenty-four" and insert "twelve".

Mr. Michael Shaw: I should say a word of thanks to the Minister for introducing this Amendment as it goes a long way to meeting our fear that there seemed to be no time limit on when the notice could be served. Our only worry is whether the time limit is still of too great a duration. Many things can happen in 24 months, and one would have thought that the Corporation should have made up its mind about the type of information which it wanted a good deal quicker than in 24 months. However, we are grateful that a time limit has been imposed, and we

are prepared to accept the Amendment in that spirit.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I beg to move Amendment No. 149, in page 30, line 16, to leave out from "shall" to "be" in line 17 and to insert:
if it is proved that he had no reasonable excuse".
This is a very short, simple and, I trust, non-controversial Amendment. On the last occasion on which I had the pleasure of addressing the Parliamentary Secretary, he saw the point which I sought to put to him very quickly, and therefore I am sure that I shall not have to labour the argument on this Amendment. I hope that as we draw to the end of our lengthy discussions on Report he is in responsive mood.
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman, since he comes comparatively freshly to the discussions, that in brief this matter concerns the onus of proof, and particularly the onus of proof on a person who fails to satisfy the obligation imposed by the Clause.
6.30 p.m.
I do not need to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that the provisions of Clause 36 are very extensive. I know they have been whittled down in part as a result of persuasive argument in Standing Committee, but the fact remains that under subsection (7)
A person who fails to satisfy an obligation .. shall, unless he proves that he had reasonable excuse for the failure, be guilty of an offence.
I want to say quite clearly to the Parliamentary Secretary that those words are totally unacceptable to us on this side of the House.
A person who is facing the penalties laid down in Clause 36, and under that subsection in particular, is placed in the position of having to prove that he has reasonable excuse for the failure, and that is quite unacceptable to us. That is why in our Amendment we reverse the order, so that it has to be proved that he had no reasonable excuse. I would have hoped that this point would not need elaborating, certainly at this hour. The Minister, in Committee, has already shown himself to be susceptible to argument on this. There are very major ramifications here; there are very extensive


matters which are required to be produced; there are very extensive duties laid upon the persons who are covered by this Clause. It surely does not seem reasonable that such a person should stand accused, as it were, by the words of subsection (7) as they stand at present.
It is a short, simple and reasonable Amendment, and I confidently expect the Parliamentary Secretary to be able to accept it.

Mr. Freeson: This is the kind of Amendment which I personally and, I am sure, all of us, would wish to support if it were possible to do so, because one sees the motivation of the remarks of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and his Amendment. Normally, of course, it is right that a person liable to a penalty should not have the burden of proof of innocence placed upon him, but, unfortunately, in this case no other way, I am advised, would be workable; no other arrangement could be adopted which would be effective.
Nobody except the person involved would have sufficient knowledge of the circumstances to be able to prove the case one way or another. No other person would be in the position to give the information required of him; it could not be collected and would be impossible to collect. Nobody else would be able to prove this, because nobody else would know whether the information was in fact available.
There is another point. The requirements likely to be imposed under Clause 36 are straightforward and very factual. Whether or not any person has met them is not a question requiring a balance of probabilities, or, indeed, a question of right or wrong; it would be solely a factual matter. Normally, it would be quite obvious whether a person involved had complied with the obligations imposed on him.

Division No. 249.]
AYES
[6.36 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Barnett, Joel
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert


Albu, Austen
Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Boyden, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bence, Cyril
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Alldritt, Walter
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Bradley, Tom


Allen, Scholefield
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Bidwell, Sydney
Brooks, Edwin


Archer, Peter
Binns, John
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)



Armstrong, Ernest
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Boardman, H.
Buchan, Norman


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Booth, Albert
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Boston, Terence
Cant, R. B.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Carmichael, Neil

It is for the reasons which I have briefly stated, and not in any spirit of antagonism at all to the motivation here, that I hope that the Amendment will be not pressed.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The Parliamentary Secretary will, I hope, forgive me for saying that he has not really applied his very considerable faculties to this case in the way I think it deserves. He took refuge in rather vague advice that there is no other way of encompassing the object of the Amendment. Of course, from the point of view of the Government this is the very much more convenient way of doing it—placing the onus of proof this way round, on the suspected person. It always will be.
If I understood him aright, he argued that it would be impossible to prove whether the person had or had not produced the evidence required, but, after all, the Government have got first to be satisfied that that person has failed in his obligations. They have to have this information, anyway. They have to be certain that there is a prima facie case before they start. They will be in a position very well to judge whether the person had any reasonable excuse, and they should accept the onus of proof.
I am afraid that I must say quite definitely that the Government argument is merely on convenience and expediency, and I think there is a considerable point of principle here. It is only out of deference to the hour that I do not argue it further. I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will support me, for I have no intention whatever of withdrawing the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 214.

Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Colin (B'h'ae &amp; Spenb'gh)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Chapman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Coe, Denis
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'Cras, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Probert, Arthur


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Randall, Harry


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Carol (Lewiaham, S.)
Rankin, John


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Redhead, Edward


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Cronin, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Judd, Frank
Richard, Ivor


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lawson, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Ledger, Ron
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lestor, Miss Loan
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dickens, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Dobson, Ray
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Doig, Peter
Luard, Evan
Ryan, John


Driberg, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sheldon, Robert


Dunnett, Jack
McBride, Neil
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McCann, John
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; G'b'e)
MacColl, James
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Eadie, Alex
MacDermot, Niall
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, A. H.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ellis, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Slater, Joseph


Ennals, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Small, William


Ensor, David
Maclennan, Robert
Snow, Julian


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Steel, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Finch, Harold
MacPherson, Malcolm
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Stonehouse, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Foley, Maurice
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swain, Thomas


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Swingler, Stephen


Ford, Ben
Mapp, Charles
Taverne, Dick


Forrester, John
Marquand, David
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Fowler, Gerry
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Thornton, Ernest


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mason, Roy
Tinn, James


Freeson, Reginald
Mayhew, Christopher
Tomney, Frank


Gardner, Tony
Mellish, Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, J. J.
Urwin, T. W.


Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Eric G.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gregory, Arnold
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wallace, George


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Molloy, William
Watkins, David (Consett)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Weitzman, David


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hamiton James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland
Whitaker, Ben


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Murray, Albert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Haseldine, Norman
Neal, Harold
Whitlock, William


Hazell, Bert
Norwood, Christopher
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Ogden, Eric
Wilkins, W. A.


Henig, Stanley
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oram, Albert E.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hilton, W. S.
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hooley, Frank
Orme, Stanley
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Horner, John
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Winnick, David


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Paget, R. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Howie, W.
Park, Trevor
Yates, Victor


Hoy, James
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Zilliacus, K.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hunter, Adam
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. Harper and Mr. Walter Harrison.


Hynd, John
Pentland, Norman



Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Batsford, Brian


Astor, John
Baker, W. H. K.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton







Bell, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Gurden, Harold
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nott, John


Bessell, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley


Biffen, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Biggs-Davison, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Blaker, Peter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Body, Richard
Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hawkins, Paul
Pardoe, John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Braine, Bernard
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Percival, Ian


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heseltine, Michael
Peyton, John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hill, J. E. B.
Powell, Rt. Hn. Enoch


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bryan, Paul
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Prior, J. M. L.


Buchanan -Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hooson, Emlyn
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Builus, Sir Eric
Hordern, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Burden, F. A.
Hornby, Richard
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Campbell, Gordon
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hunt, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Channon, H. P. G.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clark, Henry
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Royle, Anthony


Cooke, Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jopling, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cordle, John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Scott. Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Sharples, Richard


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kimball, Marcus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Crawley, Aidan
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Crouch, David
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, John


Crowder, F. P.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Currie, G. B. H.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dance, James
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Teeling, Sir William


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Loveys, W. H.
Temple, John M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lubbock, Eric
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Doughty, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tilney, John


Drayson, G. B.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Dame Joan


Elliott, R. W (N 'c'te-upon-Tyne. N.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fisher, Nigel
Maude, Angus
Wall, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Walters, Dennis


Fortescue, Tim
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, Sir Dougles
Monro, Hector
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Glyn, Sir Richard
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Woodnutt, Mark


Gower, Raymond
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Worsley, Marcus


Grant, Anthony
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wylie, N. R.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Murton, Oscar
Younger, Hn. George


Gresham Cooke, R.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Eyre and Mr. Kitson.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a point concerning the incapacity of the House of Commons to deal with marginal notes. It is one thing to be confronted with a Bill which does violence to common sense, but it is quite unnecessary to add to this by doing violence to the English language and introducing horrible words

like "penalisation". There are perfectly good alternative words such as "penalty for" or "punishment for". I do not mind which words are used, but for the Government to launch this horrible word upon us is adding insult to injury.
May we have your guidance as to what powers those of us who still value the language have to amend marginal notes


which contain such atrocious words as this?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman answered his point of order in the first words which he used, when he spoke about "the incapacity of the House" to amend marginal notes. Whatever the hon. Gentleman thinks about the word "penalisation" in the marginal note—and I express no comment on that—he cannot amend it. It is not part of the Bill.

Clause 39.—(SERVICE OF NOTICES, ETC.)

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 135, in page 31, line 44, at the end to insert:
'and the provisions of the Recorded Delivery Service Act, 1962 shall apply to this Act as if the said section 56 as hereby revived had remained continuously in force from 24th November, 1949'.
I make no excuse for moving this apparently innocent and, one might almost say, trivial Amendment because, when the matter was raised in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Power said, in answering a point put by me:
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point which has created a great deal of discussion within the steel industry and among many people for some time past, and it is a very valid point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th December, 1966; C. 2342.]
The point, quite simply, is that the Recorded Delivery Service Act was passed after the 1949 Iron and Steel Act, substantial portions of which are revived by the Bill, had been declared to cease to have effect. Section 1(1,a) of the 1953 Act says:
The Iron and Steel Act, 1949, shall cease to have effect…
The Recorded Delivery Service Act provided that it should apply only to Acts passed before 1962, and the question therefore arises—and this is a legal point of some nicety—whether the 1949 Act has remained in force despite what was said in the 1953 Iron and Steel Act, or whether the provisions in the Keeling Schedule 4 to the Bill represent new legislation. If they do represent new legislation, then the Recorded Delivery Service Act cannot apply to them and the words in the Amendment are necessary if this method of serving notices is to be applied. If the words of the Act

are, as a matter of law, taken to have remained in force ever since 1949, the Recorded Delivery Service Act will automatically apply.
This, therefore, is a peg on which one can hang the broad question: does the 1949 Act, these musty old bones, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peyton —[Laughter.]—I am sorry—

Mr. Peyton: I certainly represent myself, but I represent a few other people as well.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: From my reading of the paper this morning, I gather that my hon. Friend represents a few rainbow coloured rats as well.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a marginal comment.

Mr. Jenkin: And the House has no power to deal with those matters, Sir.
The point is quite short. Do the provisions of the 1949 Act as revived in this Bill represent new legislation or are they old legislation which has remained in force, though of no effect, and is merely revived by the Bill? If the latter, the Amendment will not be necessary. If the former, the Amendment becomes desirable and should be accepted.

Mr. Marsh: Having heard the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) quote words which I used in the early hours of one morning in Committee, I shall never again be guilty of irony at any hour of the day or night.
The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue in the belief that there may well be a legal inaccuracy in the Bill, and it is right that he should, as a lawyer, raise it. As he says, the question of interpretation is whether Section 56 of the 1949 Act is an enactment to which Section 2(1,a) of the Recorded Delivery Service Act, 1962, applies. Section 2(1,a) provides that
this Act applies to the following enactments, that is to say,—
(a) the provisions of any Act…passed before or in the same Session as this Act".
In other words, the question to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention is whether Section 56 of the 1949 Act is to be regarded for the purposes of the Recorded Delivery Service Act, 1962, as having been passed before that Act.
This matter has raised considerable public interest and concern, and we have given careful examination to it. Obviously, if one is presenting a Bill and it is found to be technically inaccurate, this is a good time to stop and do something about it. However, the point was carefully considered by the Parliamentary draftsman during the preparation of the Bill, and it was considered also in Standing Committee D. The Parliamentary draftsman was entirely satisfied then that Section 56 of the 1949 Act was a provision falling within Section 2(1,a) of the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962. Since then, we have had the position examined again and, despite the arguments advanced in Committee, he has found nothing to cause him to change his view.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pressing the point because it is in the interests of both sides that legislation shall be technically and legally accurate. But I am advised that for the purposes of Section 56 of the 1949 Act Recorded Delivery will be an alternative to registered letter.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As a gesture of magnanimity to the right hon. Gentleman, we thank him for what he said, and, in the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 41.—(REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.)

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 102, in page 32, line 19, after 'order' to insert:
'and the power conferred by section 44(4) of the 1949 Act to make rules'.
This is purely a technical Amendment, the effect of which is to require that rules governing the procedure of the Arbitration Tribunal are made by Statutory Instrument subject to the negative Resolution procedure in the normal way.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 103, in page 32, line 23, after 'section' to insert:
'(Publication by Corporation of lists of prices and conditions of sale and section'.

This also is purely a technical Amendment, as is the next to follow, Amendment No. 104.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Amendment No. 104, in page 32, line 31, after '4', insert:
'and that conferred by the said section (Publication by Corporation of lists of prices and conditions of sale)'.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Schedule 2.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS IN CONNECTION WITH DISSOLUTION OF IRON AND STEEL BOARD.)

Dr. Bray: I beg to move Amendment No. 105, in page 37, line 25, at the end to insert:
( ) The last foregoing sub-paragraph shall not entitle the Corporation to see or take copies of anything in a document being a thing which, in the opinion of the Minister relates only to, or cannot conveniently be severed from a thing which relates only to, the affairs of a company referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, not being a company engaged in doing anything as a common service for iron and steel producers or any group thereof.
This Amendment meets a point made in Committee. Hon. Members opposite were concerned that documents held by the Iron and Streel Board relating solely to companies which were not coming into public ownership should not be shown to the Corporation.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3.—(AMENDMENTS OF REVIVED PROVISIONS OF 1949 ACT.)

Dr. Bray: I beg to move Amendment No. 106, in page 38, line 15, at the end to insert:
Section 1(7) For the words from 'disclose the nature of his interest' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the following words 'declare the nature of his interest—
(a) if he is not the chairman, to the chairman;
(b) if he is the chairman, to the Minister;
(c) in any case, at a meeting of the Corporation;
and the member shall not take any part after making a declaration in pursuance of any of the foregoing paragraphs in any deliberation or decision of the Corporation with respect to that contract; and a declaration made in pursuance of paragraph (c) above shall be recorded in the minutes of the Corporation'.


The question was raised in Committee whether, if a member of the Corporation found he had an interest in a contract and there was not a meeting of the Corporation for some time, embarrassment might arise for himself or the Corporation. This Amendment requires him to declare his interest to the appropriate person, so that there will be no embarrassment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Michael Shaw: I beg to move Amendment No. 142, in page 46, line 49, after 'omitted' to insert:
'in the definition of "net revenue" there shall be added at the end the words "and including, in relation to any publicly-owned company and any subsidiary thereof and any company in which the Corporation has acquired or holds any interest, an estimate of the cost of any services provided by the Corporation to any such company according to the extent to which it shall have made use of the same "'.
As usual, although this Amendment relates to Schedule 3, it has the effect of altering Schedule 4 as well. We seek to ensure that, when subsidiary companies of the Corporation have the benefit of common services supplied by the Corporation or other subsidiary companies of the Corporation, a fair charge is made to those companies for the cost of the services. We have in mind not only the common services existing at present—B.I.S.C. or B.I.S.R.A., methods of dealing with scrap, and so on—but also the fact that one of the stated objectives of this nationalisation Measure is the reorganisadon of the industry, from which there may well flow further common services which will be available to subsidiary companies, not only those directly in the iron and steel industry but others owned by the Corporation and making use of them. One thinks of the common use of computers, for example, which may well develop over the years.
There is a genuine fear strongly felt in the private sector that there will be inadequate costing on the part of some subsidiaries of the Corporation if there is no appropriate charge made in all cases for the use of these common services.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Marsh: As the hon. Gentleman says, this is a small Amendment, but quite an important one. With respect, though, it is based on a probable misreading of the Bill. The only places where the operative phrase "net

revenue" is used in the Bill are in the provisos to Sections 18(2) and 19(2,a) of the 1949 Act revived. This is one of the problems of adopting this method of drafting the Bill. These sections are about dividends paid in respect of the period before vesting date when the Corporation does not hold any interest in companies, and there are, therefore, no circumstances in which the Amendment would apply.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 112, in page 47, line 12, to leave out from '3' to the end of line 13 and to insert:
'after the word "shall", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "if the number of the members thereof exceeds ten, be such number, not being less than five, as the Corporation may from time to time determine and, if the number of the members thereof does not exceed ten"'.
This Amendment, with which, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, it might be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 125 and 126, follows from the Amendment, made by the Committee which reduces the membership of the Corporation from 10 to 7. Under the 1949 Act as revived and amended by the Bill, provision was made that a quorum for the Corporation should be not less than five members. This was fixed when the maximum size of the Corporation could vary between 10 and 16, and it is obviously too high a figure if the membership comes near the new minimum of seven. On the other hand, it would be appropriate if the membership was more than 10.
The Amendment provides that if the membership, including the Chairman, does not exceed 10, the quorum shall be at a level fixed by the Corporation at not less than 3, but if the membership exceeds 10 the quorum shall be at a level fixed by the Corporation at not less than 5.

Mr. Speaker: I take it that the House has no objection to considering with this Amendment, Amendments Nos. 125 and 126?

Mr. Marsh: No.

Mr. Barber: No.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move, Amendment No. 113, in page 47, line 43, after 'stock', to insert:
'after the word, in sub-paragraph (2), "before" there shall be inserted the words "the day on which the last payment of interest fell to be made before" and for the words, in subparagraph (3), from "be added" onwards there shall be substituted the words "at the expense of the Corporation be distributed by them amongst the persons to whom payments were made under the foregoing provisions of this paragraph so that each of them receives in the aggregate the amount which he would have received had the amount paid as aforesaid been equal to the amount so found to have accrued"'
This Amendment is rather more complicated. It deals purely with the rights of the holders of securities to be vested where the value of their securities is not settled by vesting day. It is purely to protect the position both on behalf of the banks who issue stocks, and those who deal with them.

Mr. Lubbock: Schedule 3 is practically incomprehensible. One must have the previous Act before one, and it is also necessary to have an amended copy of it. I do not think that many people looking through this Act will be able to understand it in the form in which it is presented to us. We have enough difficulty as it is. Will there be any document in which the amended provisions of the previous Act will be set out with such Amendments as are put into it by this Schedule?

Mr. Marsh: There is no specific intention to do that at the moment, but I shall, of course, look at it as a proposition. I think that on the whole most of the issues will be relatively easily understood by the sort of people who will have to deal with them. Whether a sort of "child's guide"—and I do not use the phrase offensively—should be produced is something which I am willing to consider.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4.—(FORM IN WHICH PROVISIONS OF 1949 ACT HAVE EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF THIS ACT.)

Mr. Speaker: I am advised by the Opposition that they have no objection, if the Government have no objection, to taking all the Amendments to Schedule 4 together.

Mr. Marsh: indicated assent.

Mr. Barber: With respect, Mr. Speaker, all the Amendments in the name of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member must trust the Chair.

Amendments made: No. 114, in page 50, line 4, leave out from 'knowledge' to end of line 9 and insert:
'declare the nature of his interest—
(a) if he is not the chairman, to the chairman;
(b) if he is the chairman, to the Minister;
(c) in any case, at a meeting of the Corporation;
and the member shall not take any part after making a declaration in pursuance of any of the foregoing paragraphs in any deliberation or decision of the Corporation with respect to that contract; and a declaration made in pursuance of paragraph (c) above shall be recorded in the minutes of the Corporation'.
No. 121, in page 71, line 46, after 'section', insert:
being machinery for operation at national level or works level or a level falling between those levels and appearing to the Corporation to be appropriate'.
No. 122, in page 72, line 3, after 'maintenance', insert:
'for operation at any such level as aforesaid'.
No. 123, in page 72, leave out lines 9 to 15 and insert:
(b) the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting efficiency, in any respect, in the carrying on by the Corporation and by publicly-owned companies of their activities, and the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health and welfare of persons employed by the Corporation and by publicly-owned companies.

No. 124, in page 72, line 18, at end insert:
(2A) Where it falls to the Corporation or a publicly-owned company to participate in the operation of machinery established under this section, and the operation involves discussion of a subject by other persons participating therein, the Corporation or, as the case may be, the publicly-owned company shall make available to those persons, at a reasonable time before the discussion is to take place, such information in their possession relating to the subject as, after consultation with those persons, appears to the Corporation or, as the case may be, publicly-owned company to be necessary to enable those persons to participate effectively in the discussion.

No. 125, in page 83, line 7, after 'shall', insert:
'if the number of the members thereof exceeds ten,'.

No. 126, in line 9, after 'determine', insert:
'and, if the number of the members thereof does not exceed ten, be such number, not being less than three, as the Corporation may from time to time determine'.

No. 127, in page 85, line 14, after 'before', insert:
'the day on which the last payment of interest fell to be made before'.

No. 128, line 23, leave out from shall ' to end of line 25 and insert:
'at the expense of the Corporation be distributed by them amongst the persons to whom payments were made under the foregoing provisions of this paragraph so that each of them receives in the aggregate the amount which he would have received had the amount paid as aforesaid been equal to the amount so found to have accrued'.— (Mr. Marsh.)

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Clause 1.—(APPOINTMENT AND TENURE OF OFFICE.)

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): I beg to move, Amendment No. 29, in page 1, line 16, to leave out from "of" to "and" in line 17 and to insert:
Addresses from both Houses of Parliament".
I must first apologise to the House if I propose the Amendment in a cursory form, but I am sure that the House will forgive me when it hears that I do so owing to the temporary illness of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) who has managed to come here, but has not felt able to move the Amendment himself.
The object of the Amendment is to place the Parliamentary Commissioner in the same position as other officers whose appointments are determined only on Parliamentary Resolution, and to substitute for the Resolution of one House in this respect, the Resolution of both Houses. I shall come back to the analogies and precedents in a moment, but there is one reason for moving the Amendment which I am sure will appeal to the House, or at least so much of it as hears the Amendment proposed.
When the Amendment was proposed in Committee, the Committee divided, and the result of the Division was a tie. The result of the Division therefore remained to be determined by the Chairman of the Committee, who, in the mysterious and almost religious way in which Chairmen have to cast their votes, decided to vote against the Amendment in order to achieve a debate on the Floor of the House on the Report stage, as the HANSARD Committee proceedings duly records. Those who proposed the Amendment in Committee would be lacking in duty if they did not give effect to the wish of the Chairman of the Committee when he exercised his right in the event of a tie on a Division.
Even more intriguing than that incident—which was in accord with precedent and rule—was the fact that the Minister, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, strongly supported the Audit in a carefully worded and well thought out speech. Having most seriously considered the matter, he voted for the Amendment in the Division which resulted in a tie. I feel sure that the Financial Secretary and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is seated beside him, will stick to their guns and not allow themselves to be frightened out of their manly support of what the Financial Secretary believed to be right in Committee.
I will be disappointed if the Financial Secretary, the Leader of the House, and perhaps other occupants of the Front Bench opposite do not join us in the Lobby if the Amendment is taken to a Division. It would be a pleasure, although an unusual one, to welcome them to that Lobby, but we will extend that welcome because we know that they are men of principle and courage and are not afraid of some of their own supporters, who are never wearied of restraining them. As they have expressed their opinions on the Amendment—certainly the Financial Secretary, who voted for it —I trust that his colleagues will not abandon him now or compel him to vote against his opinions.
The basis of the Amendment is, first, that the precedents are with us. The Parliamentary Commissioner is not a Commissioner of one House but a "Parliamentary Commissioner". He is, by definition to be wholly independent of the Executive. Ex hypothesi in this House the Executive have certain disciplinary powers over the working majority—which we recognise, although they are seldom acknowledged in the legal terminology of our legislation.
If the Parliamentary Commissioner is, in truth and in fact, to be independent of the Executive, his appointment should be not merely subject to the will of the majority of this House but to the will of Parliament. This has been done not only with the judges of the High Court, who must deal with the rights of the subject—as has the Parliamentary Commissioner—but also, I understand, with

the Comptroller and Auditor General. He provides a very close analogy with the Parliamentary Commissioner, not merely by reason of the personality of the first appointment but because throughout, in their advocacy of this scheme, the Government have founded their case and argument on this precise analogy with the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
I should have thought that the precedent and analogy of the Comptroller and Auditor General applies, a fortiori, to the proposed Parliamentary Commissioner, since the former is precisely concerned with the Government expenditure of money from the Consolidated Fund, to see that it is not misused. This is and always has been, not merely by convention but by immemorial convention, the prerogative of this House, to the exclusion of another place. Yet when the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General is considered and the circumstances in which this appointment is to be terminated are defined by Act of Parliament, then I understand that a Resolution of both Houses is necessary.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Financial Secretary, when he came to reply to this Amendment in Committee, found the arguments compelling to such an extent that he felt bound to rehearse them in some detail in the case of the first, the independence of the Executive, and summarily in the case of the second, of the analogies.
Let us consider the arguments advanced on the other side. They were, I suggest, based on a misunderstanding of the situation. The first was adduced by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), who said that the Parliamentary Commissioner was, in effect, an official designed to deal with complaints made by the constituents of hon. Members and made through hon. Members. That is an error. He is a person who will deal with complaints of maladministration, whether or not they are from constituents. It is true that they must be channelled through an hon. Member, but they do not need to come from that hon. Member's constituents. Nor does the possession, of a vote in a constituency, or a vote at all, constitute a right to make representations to an hon. Member. As I understand


it, there is nothing to prevent a peer, an alien, a bankrupt or a convict from making representations to an hon. Member from quite outside the constituency in which he lives. It is the prerogative of any hon. Member, as I understand it, to approach the Government in this respect.
It is, therefore, wholly wrong to suggest that the Parliamentary Commissioner is the servant of individual hon. Members to give effect to the complaints of their individual constituents. To suggest that is misunderstanding the position. Moreover, although it is not apparent from the terms of the Bill, I have understood from the debates on the subject that although, in the first instance, the Bill provides that the complaints should be channelled through hon. Members—perhaps to sift them, give priority and not to take away the prerogative of the House —it was supposed in the end that, as in other countries, the complaints should come direct from members of the public. At any rate, this is something which may or may not be the case, but the first of the two arguments must be valid.
The second reason adduced came, perhaps not surprisingly, from the ingenious mind of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman). He was so zealous of the reputation of another place and its good relations with this House that he was afraid that, if it were provided that a Resolution of both Houses was necessary before the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner could be terminated, this might give rise to some dissension between the two Houses. From the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, that was welcome news indeed. He was so zealous for the good relations between the two Houses that he was anxious at all costs to prevent the possibility of dissension between them—a laudable objective.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Since we are dealing with a quite serious matter, perhaps we should get the point clear. What is basic to the Parliamentary Commissioner doing a satisfactory job is that he should not be dragged into any kind of political controversy. If one found the continuance of his occupation in his post dependent on a Resolution of this House and also on a Resolution of another place, one must envisage

the possibility of the two Houses coming to different conclusions. If that occurred, there would be a contest between the two and it is of the nature of such a contest that it would be conducted in political terms. The impartiality and objectiveness of the Parliamentary Commissioner would obviously be called in question in such a debate, and, if there were finally disagreement between the two Houses, the continuance of his Department might depend on a constitutional conflict between the two Houses, which we would all wish to avoid. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions ought not to be speeches.

Mr. Hogg: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman found it necessary to remind the House that this is a serious subject. Of course it is. But I found his argument rather less well-phrased than I did when I read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee's proceedings, and less convincing because he did not frame it as well.
Tht answer—which, had the hon. Gentleman not intervened, I would have given him at once, and which I hasten to provide—is that it would be a convincing argument if we did not have 250 years' experience of the appointment of judges who are, for this purpose, in exactly the same position, and if we did not have nearly 100 years' experience of the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is certainly in this position. If it is said that for the serious and proper discharge of such offices they should be detached from party politics and from all suspicions of controversy, then this applies to the judges preeminently, but it has never been found in 250 years' experience that it was necessary to confine the termination of the appointment of the judges to one House to the exclusion of the other.
Indeed, I believe that if it were desired to do so, the judges themselves would think that an important safeguard by which they could be kept out of public controversy had been removed from their appointments. The same thing would be true of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Thus, I do not know why the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne should be offended when I reminded him that, admirable as his desire is to prevent dissension between the two Houses, his


fears ought to have been founded on two and a half centuries of experience of analogous appointments.

Mr. David Weitzman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a completely fallacious analogy when he compares the position of the Parliamentary Commissioner with that of the judges. As I understand it, the Parliamentary Commissioner is an officer who receives complaints through hon. Members, which is completely different from the position of the judges.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not following my argument. I had already dealt with that point, which was a bad one when he made it in Committee. I was engaged on answering the point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. The analogy is exact and I was taking the argument of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne seriously, as he asked me to do, and that hon. Gentleman was trying to say that, because of the need for the Parliamentary Commissioner to operate in a detached atmosphere, it was important not to involve him in any possible dispute between the two Houses.
That applies exactly to the judges. As I said at the outset, it is true that under the Bill the Parliamentary Commissioner is a servant of this House, as is the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, we have passed from that, because I had answered that point and I will not weary the House with repetition, even though the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North does not seem to have appreciated the relevance of what I was saying.
The only other argument put forward was adduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) who said that it would be unfortunate should the Parliamentary Commissioner turn out to be a peer and then take part in a debate in the House of Lords on a Resolution demanding his dismissal. I have dealt with all the other arguments, and if that is the only one left—and it must be, having, dealt with all the others—in opposition to the Amendment, then I do not take it very seriously, in spite of the danger of incurring the wrath of the

hon. Member for Nelson and Colne because, as everyone knows, public servants who are in another place—and there are a few—are restrained by strict rules from taking part in debates relating to their offices. The possibility of the Parliamentary Commissioner being a peer in the foreseeable future—at any rate, under this Administration—depends entirely on hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that would depend on whether they advised Her Majesty to issue a patent of peerage to the present incumbent. Therefore, that is not a serious point.
This is a wholly reasonable Amendment. It commended itself to the Financial Secretary in Committee and if the Government have any sense of the preponderance of argument they will now accept it.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I have no observations to make in this discussion, but I was about to interrupt the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who said that we did not follow his argument. He was right about that. Knowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am sure that he would not wish to leave uncorrected his unwitting discourtesy to Her Majesty in his concluding words. He said that the question of who was a peer was a matter for hon. Members on this side. It is a matter entirely of the Royal Prerogative exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. Nobody else can interfere.

Mr. Hogg: I thought I had made it plain that I was talking about the possibility of the present incumbent becoming a peer. I take it that this could not be done without the approval of the Government. I certainly was guilty of no discourtesy to the occupant of the Throne, nor would I have been in order had I been so.

Mr. Weitzman: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has stated so clearly the arguments which I put in Committee that I do not want to repeat them. The only answer that he has given to them is that he says he does not agree with them. I do agree with them. They are perfectly sound arguments. For that reason, the Amendment should be rejected.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): The right hon. and


learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) moved his Amendment with his usual good humour but said one thing which was misleading to my hon. Friends when he said that the name "Parliamentary Commissioner" should imply that the Commissioner is not for the House of Commons but is for Parliament as a whole. I was not on the Standing Committee but I have read the report of the debates. If that was the impression that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gained by reading the debate—and I have read it, the same as he has done—he has misread it, because great attention was paid to removing any idea that the Parliamentary Commissioner was in this sense responsible to both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Hogg: I made it plain that I accepted that. I said that the Parliamentary Commissioner was in the same position from that point of view as the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Crossman: That is the nub of my argument. He is, in fact, in the same position as the Comptroller and Auditor General. We use the word "Parliamentary" in the title in the same way as we use the title "Member of Parliament". It is important to emphasise, although this is not a very profound point, that the Parliamentary Commissioner is a House of Commons person who works only for Members of Parliament.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked gaily about that being a mere formality, but to us on this side it is an important part of the Bill that the Parliamentary Commissioner is an instrument of investigation which can be brought into action only through a Member of Parliament. As we shall be discussing later, we are to have a Select Committee of our own which will operate and conduct his proceedings. It should be clear that the use of the word "Parliamentary" means no more than when we use the title "Member of Parliament" about ourselves. He is a servant of the House of Commons.
It would have been possible to give the Parliamentary Commissioner wider responsibility and to say that any Member of the House of Lords would have the right to ask the Parliamentary Cornmissioner to work for him. That was discussed at an early stage in Committee

but the suggestion was dropped. It was made clear by the Government that we were not prepared to consider any kind of Amendment which would widen the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner into his being somebody who could serve not only Members of Parliament, but also members of the House of Lords.
On balance, I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was quite right in saying that simply because of the analogy of the Comptroller and Auditor General and to make assurance double sure, it is better to have the same routine. I doubt whether it will be used much in this Parliament by the recall of the two Houses but we want to put the Parliamentary Commission in the strictest sense comparable with the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is what the Clause does. It states that he shall be as independent as the Comptroller and Auditor General. He will be that kind of person.
Because we want to emphasise that his office will be as dignified and independent and, at the same time, linked equally with the House of Commons, we should have the same procedure in this case. Therefore, solely for that reason, I advise that we should accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.)

7.30 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 34, to leave out 'and servants'.
Would it be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to discuss at the same time the following Amendments which deal with the same subject matter:

No. 2: in Clause 5, page 3, line 21, after 'by', insert 'or on behalf of'.

No. 15: in Clause 11, page 7, line 20, leave out 'his officers and his servants' and insert 'and his officers'.

No. 17: in Clause 12, page 8, line 22, at end insert '"officer" includes employee'.

Mr. Speaker: I have no objection if the Opposition have no objection. So be it.

Mr. MacDermot: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. This is a group of four drafting


Amendments to meet a point which was raised by a number of hon. Members in Committee. We are agreed that we intend "officers" where it is used in the Bill to include servants or agents. We believe that this is already the effect of the original word, but to make assurance doubly sure we have put down these Amendments.
The logical way to approach the Amendments is to go first to the fourth Amendment, to the Interpretation Clause, and to say that "officer" shall include "employee". We have used that term rather than "servant" or "agent" because "servant" is not a very apt word to use in relation to people in the employment of the Crown. We wanted a word to cover persons employed, whatever their capacity, who might not be office holders. I have in mind messengers, for example.
Logically we go next to the first and third of the four Amendments, which, in consequence, take out the word "servants" where it appears. The second Amendment, to insert "or on behalf of" in Clause 5, is designed to meet the point of agency which was discussed in Committee. We did not use the word "agent" as such because it has a wide range of meanings. Our intention is that there shall be included within the scope of the investigation of the Commissioner not only the acts of officers themselves and of Departments, but of anyone who is acting as a statutory agent of the Department: that is to say, a person or body which carries out a function on behalf of the Department by virtue of a statutory delegation and which is not simply doing the work by a purely contractual arrangement.
Two examples were mentioned in Committee. One was the Bank of England when operating on behalf of the Treasury in exchange control work. Another was local authorities, which act in an agency capacity on behalf of the Minister of Transport in doing trunk road work. Other examples which have been drawn to my attention are veterinary surgeons in private practice appointed by the Minister of Agriculture to act as local veterinary inspectors and the motoring associations, the A.A. and the R.A.C., when exercising certain functions concerning international driving certificates. This

is not an exhaustive list. I give it merely by way of example. I think that the Amendments now meet all the points which were raised in Committee.

Mr. William Roots: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for the Amendments. There was considerable discussion of these matters in Committee, when a number of my hon. Friends were unhappy about the wording of the various Clauses. I hope and believe that the Amendments meet the points which we raised in Committee and I do not oppose them.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Before we part with the Amendment, I should like the Financial Secretary to say whether those who serve in the Commissioner's Department will be his employees or civil servants or what else will be their precise status. With whom will they be in contract? It appears even from this Amendment that the intention is that they should be the employees of the Commissioner. It is of some importance to know what their position will be.

Mr. MacDermot: I speak from recollection and subject to correction, but the right answer, I think, is that technically they will be civil servants. This is a matter which is of importance from the viewpoint of their pensions. They will be appointed, I think, by means of the certificate procedure which governs their pensions. They will be entirely under the direction of the Parliamentary Commissioner, who is an officer of this House, and it will be only in that formal sense that they will in any sense be civil servants.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4.—(DEPARTMENTS AND AUTHORITIES SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION.)

Sir John Hobson: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 3, line 5, at the end to insert:
( ) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section and of section 5 of this Act the Commissioner shall have power to carry out any investigations directed by a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament and shall report thereon to both Houses as soon as his investigation has been completed.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, it will be convenient to take also


Amendment No. 39, in Clause 5, page 4, line 4, at end insert:
'unless the Minister responsible for the department or other authority concerned authorises such an investigation to be made'.

Sir J Hobson: The object of the Amendment is to give a useful power to the Parliamentary Commissioner to be employed for special purposes and on special occasions which, we may find unhappily, are outside the scope of the Bill.
We know all too well that there are many occasions when public interest and the pressure of Parliamentary opinion demands an inquiry. The only existing safeguard is in the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921, which is a very heavy-handed hammer and which, the recent excellent Report of the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Justice Salmon has said, should be used only on the rarest occasions and on occasions of great public anxiety and interest.
Between, therefore, the provisions of the Bill as it stands and the circumstances in which the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921, may be employed, there is a very wide gap. It is, therefore, in view of the new Parliamentary Commissioner, with his knowledge and experience of investigations, with his staff and with his ability to conduct investigations of this sort, that we have thought it right to give a little latitude to the Bill.
The Government constantly say that we must proceed cautiously and that the Commissioner cannot be allowed to jump into the wide seas of investigation but must be narrowly constricted. They have succeeded fairly successfully in ensuring that he does very little indeed. One could have drawn a Bill in the form that it gave a great number of powers which are to be operated only when the Government have introduced an Order in Council, but they have not even done that. They have given no elasticity of any kind to allow wider or more varied investigations than within the strict and narrow limits of the Bill.
On occasion, therefore, perhaps not very regularly, the Amendment might well provide a useful provision. It is drafted on the basis that such a special inquiry should be conducted only on the basis of a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This is on the basis that legislation is being altered.
It is right when there is delegated legislation, when there are extended powers which have not already been given by Parliament, that there should be affirmative Resolutions of both Houses. It also means in substance that the Commissioner would never be able to undertake a special inquiry under the Clause, unless the Government were in agreement to it, because we proceed on the basis that the Government will be in control of at least one House for the time being. Therefore, there cannot be an inquiry under the 1921 Act unless the Government agree to it. It is equally obvious that under this proposal it would be impossible, without the consent of the Government, for such a special inquiry to be embarked upon by the Ombudsman.
Moreover, there are those who think that the Commissioner may be the beginning of a very important development in our Constitution and in the protection of citizens. It might well be useful to have this opportunity to experiment in the extension of his powers. The proposal gives some flexibility, left under the control of the Government. I therefore commend it to the House.

Mr. Hale: I confess that at first sight this seems to me to be an excellent proposal. I should like to hear the Government's reply, because I do not claim any expertise in this matter. I can appreciate that one of the arguments which may be advanced against the proposal is that the Commissioner will not have the powers to summon witnesses, and so on, which a tribunal of inquiry may have. That itself is an excellent recommendation. There have been many cases where an inquiry by a trusted individual on documents, with a report that no further inquiry was necessary, might have been a very great improvement upon some of the tragedies that the Tribunals of Inquiry Act has perpetrated.
The House is familiar with the history of that Act. It was conceived by this House in a moment of hystetria on an allegation which was not true. It was conceived after someone had demanded an inquiry into alleged misdoings in the sale of munitions, which proved extremely attractive material for the Press but in respect of which no single reliable witness ever came forward. If I remember, the


Member of the House who raised the matter, and who was an old friend of mine, did not really attempt effectively to pursue the matter once the allegation had been made.
I do not want to recall the whole history of these things. The House is one of the worst tribunals in the world when it gets excited. I was involved—not personally, but professionally involved as legal adviser—in the Lynskey Tribunal affecting Mr. Belcher. I thought that the whole thing was a tragedy. No one felt that any added purity to public life was produced as a result of it. A lot of ridiculous and wholly unsupported allegations were made. I took some part in suppressing many of these things by extremely improper means, which I will not now detail to the House.
The House itself suffered when allegations were made against one of its Members, which were investigated by a High Court judge, who conducted a searching inquiry, who published a detailed report, and who played in that respect the sort of part the Commissioner could play.
If the Commissioner wins public confidence and respect, as I expect and hope he will, though that I think the Bill will saddle him with real difficulties which will not make it easy for him to proceed with speed and always completely to the public satisfaction, it might almost become an accepted practice that, by resolution of both Houses, where allegations are made which involve the decencies of public life, such an official could immediately investigate. He might say almost immediately, "This is another of those hysterical allegations which are made". He might say, "I must inquire further". He might issue a report which I concede might necessitate a further inquiry—under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, or a judicial inquiry, or by process of the courts. That would be inevitable.
7.45 p.m.
My only doubt about the Amendment is whether it is necessary, because I should have thought that, if both Houses passed a resolution of this kind, they could in that resolution give the power and the directions. I am not sure of that. On that matter the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) is much more likely to be right than I am. It may be that we should

have to pass a special, tiny, formal Act of Parliament in each case. If this proposal were embodied in the Bill, it would save that procedure. It would save the rather unsavoury type of debate that might arise on that procedure.
I hope that we shall never need to use these powers. I can visualise occasions on which the leader of any Government might be very grateful to have them. I am tempted to say this, and I say it with reticence and reserve, because I never took part in any speeches or talk about one of the last incidents which worried the House for some time. If the distinguished Prime Minister who was in office at the time that certain complaints were made against security, which I think in the end were proved to be manifestly untrue but in respect of which there was some gossip, some associations, some events, had had the power to say, "We will move a Resolution of both Houses that the Parliamentary Commissioner, who enjoys our confidence, shall look into this and tell us whether it might go further", one of the most unpleasant events in our Parliamentary lives—there are several of us who are ashamed of this event—might have been avoided.
What I have reason to say emphatically is that the Tribunals of Inquiry Act is hopelessly and wickedly unsatisfactory. There is always something to be said for the private, quiet, preliminary inquiry by a person trusted and independent. There is nothing to be said for the perversion of the rules of evidence and justice over these issues, for roving questions on subjects one has never been warned about, for witnesses being brought whom one has been promised will not be brought, for a man's wife being fetched from her kitchen to testify against her husband who was a distinguished Minister of the Crown. Yes, indeed; that happened to John Belcher after I had been personally promised that it would not be done. Mrs. Belcher was fetched from 20 miles away and shoved hysterical into the box. Of course I must not pursue this. Of course I must not say that her mental health was affected. Of course I must not say that, and I will not. But some of us remember. These were evil things that were happening.
I have three times been involved in inquiries under the Tribunals of Inquiry


Act. I can say now after all these years that one of them seemed to be a put-up job from the start. However, our trusted method; of procedure should not be lightly abandoned. That is why I commend to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the suggestion that we might take advantage of this opportunity to do something which imposes no obligation upon anyone but which provides an additional, and I think fruitful, method of dealing with exceptional problems, and dealing with them in a manner which might give confidence to the public.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Bill gives the Commissioner very wide powers. They are much wider than the powers which can be given by a Minister without special assistance from this House for the purpose of inquiring into some matter. But they are not so wide as the powers given under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, and I think that there is plenty of room for an inquiry to be held where the inquirer has greater powers than what might be called the ordinary run of the mill powers, but less formidable powers than those given under the Act. Under the Bill, the Commissioner is prevented, by Clause 3, from inquiring into matters within the responsibility of certain Departments and, by Clause 5, from inquiring into certain matters within those other Departments which he can look into. What this Amendment does is to allow both houses of Parliament together by Resolution to remove the particular restrictions and so enable the Parliamentary Commissioner to hold just such a half-way house inquiry. I think that that would be very helpful, and I support the Amendment warmly.
Let it be said that the Amendment is only permissive. It will enable Parliament to permit this to occur, but it will not in any sense compel the Commissioner to take action. It does not put the Commissioner into an awkward position.
The Amendment standing in my name goes less far than that proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). My Amendment proposes to make an addition to subsection (3) of Clause 5, which provides:
Without prejudice to subsection (2) of this section, the Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation under this Act in respect

of any such action or matter as is described in Schedule 3 to this Act.
Schedule 3 set out a number of matters which it is generally agreed ought not to be inquired into.
What my Amendment suggests is that we should add to that the words:
unless the Minister responsible for the Department or other authority concerned authorises such an investigation to be made".
In other words, there may be cases where the Minister himself would be glad to use the machinery of the Commissioner. Under the Bill as it is now drafted, he is prevented from doing so. This will enable him, in effect, to waive the objection laid down by the Bill. It seems to me to be a moderate and sensible step which could easily be taken.
My Amendment is not an alternative to that moved by my right hon. and learned Friend. It is in addition to it. Therefore, I support both Amendments, and I hope that both may be made to the Bill.

Mr. MacDermot: The official Opposition Amendment is similar to one which we discussed in Committee. It was agreed then that we were discussing it against the background of the very rigid provisions which existed then and still exist in relation to Schedule 3, because, as the Bill stands at the moment, the exclusions in Schedule 3 are absolute exclusions, and it would only be possible for the Parliamentary Commissioner to examine cases falling within any of the categories in Schedule 3 if another Act of Parliament were passed enabling him to do that.
As hon. Members will be aware, in response to requests made in Committee, we have put down an Amendment that we shall reach in a few moments in which we propose to take power to amend Schedule 3 by Order in Council. If it is found both desirable and practicable to extend the scope of the Commissioner's powers to include any of the matters at present excluded by Schedule 3, we will be able to do that by the Order in Council procedure, subject to a Resolution of this House. I respectfully suggest that that alters the need for any Amendment such as is now proposed.
The official Opposition Amendment is an extremely far-reaching one. I am not sure whether hon. Members opposite


realise just how far-reaching it is. Under its terms, one would introduce a concept which is alien to the whole structure of the Bill, because it would mean that there would be no limit to the kinds of matters which could be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner by a Resolution of both Houses. For example, it is not limited to topics where the action to be investigated is action on behalf of the Crown. At the moment, that limitation is found in Clause 5, and it is excluded by the words of the Amendment. It would be possible for the House to order the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate actions of local authorities, of nationalised industries and, indeed, of private companies—

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Not order—permit.

Mr. MacDermot: Effectively, it would be order. If there was a Resolution of both Houses that the Commissioner should carry out an investigation into some particular topic, from a practical point of view I suggest that this would have the effect of negating his discretion as to whether or not he investigated that matter. It would operate as an instruction to the Commissioner, and it could be an instruction to investigate the affairs of a private company. That would be a wide-ranging tribunal procedure with a vengeance.
Schedule 2 would be completely overridden. There would not be the limitation which is provided by the requirement that there should be a complaint by an individual or a corporate body, which is the origin of the proceedings. That would go. It would not need a complaint by an individual and it would not even require that someone should be complaining of an injustice. Even if he were complaining of an injustice, it would not require his consent to the proceedings. That is an important safeguard which we have at the moment. The requirement that the target of the Commissioner's investigation should be maladministration would go, because that is in Clause 5. He could investigate anything, including discretionary decisions. He would be able to review decisions of the courts; he could be called upon to act as a court of appeal against the courts, because that limitation

is in Clause 5. The time limits would go, together with all the exceptions in Schedule 3.
Perhaps I have said enough to show that this is an extraordinarily widely drafted Amendment and, in effect, would be a recipe for a universal inquisitorial procedure.
Whatever may be the faults of our present tribunals of inquiry system, we should not set up a kind of second class inquiries procedure without proper safeguards built into it. We have now the Report of the Salmon Committee, which has made important recommendations about the Tribunals and Inquiries Act procedure, but nothing of that kind is contained in the Amendment.
I pass over the fact that it talks in terms of a resolution of both Houses, when I think that we are agreed that, operatively, the Parliamentary Commissioner will be an officer working to this House.
The Amendment which we are discussing with—

Mr. Hale: I remember that one of the arguments which impressed us on the Police Commission when talking about a national force was that if a Government behaved so badly in relation to a national force as people said in talking about the S.S., that Government could do anything, anyhow. If a Government and a House of Lords were so bad and so grossly incompetent that both Houses passed Addresses demanding an investigation into something which was manifestly improper under circumstances which were highly undesirable, by that time the Commissioner probably would have been hanging from a lamp post, if lamp posts still existed. Surely that is advancing into the realms of romance.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: I am obliged for what I take to be the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). For a moment, earlier, I thought that he was urging that we should accept the Opposition Amendment.
If I might turn to the second Amendment which we are discussing, that of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), it does not go nearly as far and is limited to giving an additional power to the Commissioner to


investigate what might be called Schedule 3 cases—the cases in the excluded categories—if the Minister of the Department or other authority concerned consents to the investigation. On the face of it, this is an attractive proposal, because one can say, "What possible harm is there in it? It would be a useful additional power. The Minister might welcome this kind of investigation procedure, and he need never consent to it unless he wants to."
The answer is that one must realise what in practice would be the result of passing a provision of this kind. It would mean that every dissatisfied complainant —we all know from our experience as Members of Parliament that there are many persistent dissatisfied complainants, and sometimes their persistence varies in inverse ratio to our own judgment of the substance of their complaints—would know of the existence of the power and would be pressing his Member of Parliament to raise the matter in the House, saying, "Why do you not press the Minister to consent to this investigation?" No doubt it would be raised in the House at Question time and in Adjournment debates.
Often the Minister's reason for not wanting an investigation would be the knowledge that, if he allowed a particular case to be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner, he would be opening the door to a whole new procedure of a vast number of similar complaints being referred as well. As we know, it is our practice in Government in these matters to try and establish precedents and to operate on principle in accordance with precedent. I suggest that what is being argued as the very special case would not in practice be the very special case. Each one would open the door to a new class of cases.
If this is what we want, the answer is that our new Amendment will provide the means to permit it. If it is found in practice that there is no reason why a certain class of Schedule 3 cases should not be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner, we will be able to make an Order, assuming that the House sees fit to pass the Amendment which we shall be considering shortly. For those reasons, I would advise the House not to accept either of the Amendments.

Mr. Antony Buck: I find the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments totally unconvincing. It was not perhaps a great surprise that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) succeeded in demolishing them totally by his intervention. It came as a surprise that the hon. Gentleman succeeded in doing so in two short sentences. It sometimes takes a little longer for him to deploy arguments which are so devastating in character.
The fact is that the hon. and learned Gentleman has shown a wild mistrust of Parliament. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really think that Parliament will behave in such an irresponsible way as to call upon the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate matters inappropriate to him? That view would seem to be something of an insult to Parliament. It is absurd that the Parliamentary Commissioner cannot be called upon by Parliament to investigate anything that Parliament wants.
In setting up the Parliamentary Commissioner, we are indulging in a great experiment. We shall be seeing the utility of this new office and will no doubt see it expand and become more and more useful. It may well be that, in due course, Parliament may think it appropriate to entrust the Parliamentary Commissioner with the investigation of a local government matter. Why not? It might be entirely appropriate that, after he has dug himself in with the full range of activities flowing from the Bill, Parliament may well wish to experiment and allow him, perhaps commission him, specifically to investigate some local government scandal or allegation of maladministration. It is this sort of matter we would wish to have referred to him.

Mr. Weitzman: Why is it necessary to have the Amendment? If Parliament passes a Resolution asking the Parliamentary Commissioner to do something, why is it necessary to put it in an Act? Surely it could be done adequately by Resolution.

Mr. Buck: This matter was raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. My view is that if the Parliamentary Commissioner were to undertake matters other than those in the Bill, he would


be acting ultra vires. What would be required would be a short Act of Parliament. As I understand it, the Parliamentary Commissioner could not be authorised merely by Resolution of both Houses to undertake an investigation outside the ambit of the Bill. But perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary will indicate whether that view of the law is correct or not rather than that I should have the invidious task of correcting the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) on a point of law.
As I understand it, the Parliamentary Commissioner could not investigate a matter which was merely put forward by Resolution of both Houses. It could not be done except by Act of Parliament. It is absurd that Parliament cannot refer a specific matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner. As the office evolves and grows, as we see the way it becomes an effective instrument for good, why should we not, as Members of Parliament, by Resolution of both Houses, refer matters to the Parliamentary Commissioner which are outside the ambit of the Schedule—for example, a specific experiment such as a local government scandal which would be entirely appropriate? This is full justification of the Amendment.

Mr. Weitzman: I do not know how it can be suggested that, if a Resolution passed by Parliament authorises the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate a matter, it can possibly be said to be ultra vires.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I have listened carefully and am persuaded by the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary on what is clearly a constitutional matter. There is clearly a case for reforming the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, but that is a different matter from what we are discussing in this Bill and the Amendment. It seems wrong that Parliament should introduce by sidewind under another Measure a power as wide as that.
The answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is surely that Parliament must be very careful not to give power for things to be done in its name, because one never knows what the future complexion of Parliament may be.

I agree that it is hardly likely that a future Parliament would resort to measures which none of us here would approve of but nevertheless it remains our duty to make its task very hard if such a Parliament came about. It is surely a constitutional principle of this House that we give no more power than is necessary for the immediate purpose in mind. It is a wise principle and the Financial Secretary is absolutely right.

Sir J. Hobson: In reply to hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) I would say that surely a Resolution of both Houses could not give to the Parliamentary Commissioner any powers beyond what he has and therefore he could not, without the Bill, use any of the powers to be provided by the Bill merely because a Resolution of both Houses asked him to do so. That is surely plain law. Unless this is expressly put in an Amendment like this, the powers available under Clauses 7, 8 and 9—provisions about defamation and other matters which are of great importance—would not be attracted to an inquiry which was called for without the provisions of the Bill —an inquiry that the Parliamentary Commissioner conducted at the behest of Parliament.

Mr. Weitzman: Supposing Parliament passed a Resolution that the Parliamentary Commissioner be asked to investigate a certain matter and gave him certain powers with regard to that inquiry. How could that be ultra vires?

Sir J. Hobson: It is a new doctrine that, by Resolution of both Houses, we can confer power on anyone. I am sure that is wrong. I do not want to delay the House. We have had a good debate. I agree in principle with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)—that one wants to be careful about what powers one is conferring and I wish that the Government would take that much more to heart and themselves be more careful about the delegated legislation that they are pouring through the House at present with very little Parliamentary control.
The point about the Amendment is that it would strengthen possible Parliamentary control. It would not be possible to have an inquiry by the Parliamentary


Commissioner under the Amendment without a Resolution of both Houses. It is all very well the Financial Secretary saying, "What a terrible thing—there is no complainant". The two Houses of Parliament are the complainants. What better complainants are there? He says that it is terrible that there are no limits on what the Parliamentary Commissioner would be enabled to inquire into. But I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). We have to rely a little on the sense of the two Houses.
One cannot imagine them investigating the proceedings of a court of law and seeing whether an appeal decision to the court ought to be reversed. This is a tightly drawn Bill with great restrictions on the matters to be investigated. While I acknowledge the slight additional

Division No. 250.]
AYES
[8.15 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Neave, Airey


Alason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grieve, Percy
Nott, John


Awdry, Daniel
Gurden, Harold
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, W. H. K.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pink, R. Bonner


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pym, Francis


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hordern, Peter
Roots, William


Campbell, Gordon
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clark, Henry
Hunt, John
Scott, Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sharples, Richard


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cordle, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Stainton, Keith


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mawby, Ray
Vickers, Dame Joan


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Weatherill, Bernard


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Miscamphell, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monro, Hector
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Glover, Sir Douglas
More, Jasper
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gower, Raymond
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wylie N. R.


Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar



Grant-Ferris, R.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Eyre and Mr. Kitson.




NOES


Albu, Austell
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman
Dalyell, Tam


Archer, Peter
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dewar, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dobson, Ray


Bence, Cyril
Chapman, Donald
Doig, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Coe, Denis
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Binns, John
Coleman, Donald
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Blackburn, F.
Concannon, J. D.
Eadie, Alex


Boardman, H.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)


Booth, Albert
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Boyden, James
Crawshaw, Richard
Ellis, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ensor, David


Brooks, Edwin

Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

loosening that there will be by the ability to remove things from the categories in Schedule 3, Schedule 3 is not the only restriction that the Bill imposes on the capacity of the Parliamentary Commissioner to conduct inquiries.
We cannot foresee what circumstances may appear and what real necessity there may be to employ the great skill, knowledge and experience and staff of the Parliamentary Commissioner in having an inquiry which both Houses think is necessary. I am content to rely on both Houses and therefore I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 170.

Finch, Harold
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rankin, John


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Foley, Maurice
McCann, John
Richard, Ivor


Ford, Ben
MacDermot, Niall
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fowler, Gerry
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'tow, E.)


Gordon Walter, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackintosh, John P.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Maclennan, Robert
Rose, Paul


Gregory, Arnold
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Grey, Charles (Durham)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Hamiton, James (Bothwell)
Mapp, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David
Silkin Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Haseldine, Norman
Mason, Roy
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Henig, Stanley
Mayhew, Christopher
Slater, Joseph


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mellish, Robert
Small, William


Hilton, W. S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Snow, Julian


Hooley, Frank
Miltchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hooson, Emlyn
Molloy, William
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Murray, Albert
Swingler, Stephen


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Neal, Harold
Symonds, J. B.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Norwood, Christopher
Thorpe, Jeremy


Howie, W.
Ogden, Eric
Tinn, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian
Tuck, Raphael


Hunter, Adam
Oram, Albert E.
Urwin, T. W.


Hynd, John
Orme, Stanley
Varley, Eric G.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas
Wainwright Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Paget, R. T.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pardoe, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Park, Trevor
Whitaker, Ben


Lawson, George
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pavitt, Laurence
Winnick, David


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pentland, Norman
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Lomas, Kenneth
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Loughlin, Charles
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Luard, Evan
Price, William (Rugby)



Lubbock, Eric
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:



Randall, Harry
Mr. Whitlock and




Mr Walter Harrison.

Clause 5.—(MATTERS SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION.)

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 3, line 21 after 'by' to insert 'or on behalf of'.

No. 3, in line 35 to leave out 'save at his discretion'.—[Mr. MacDermot]

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 43 at the end to insert:
Provided that the Commissioner may conduct an investigation notwithstanding that the person aggrieved has or had such a right or remedy if satisfied that in the particular circumstances it is not reasonable to expect him to resort or have resorted to it.
The Amendment arises from Amendments which were carried in Committee, in respect of which I then had a somewhat rough passage. The Amendments which were moved by two of my hon. Friends went rather far and gave the Parliamentary Commissioner the right to intervene at his discretion in cases where there was recourse either to a tribunal or a court of law. As originally drafted, the Bill excluded from the Parliamentary

Commissioner's powers all cases where there was a recourse to a tribunal and cases where there was recourse to proceedings in a court of law, unless he was satisfied that in the circumstances it was not reasonable to expect the complainant to take, or have taken, proceedings in a court of law.
As the Bill now stands as a result of the Amendment in Committee, its effect is that the Parliamentary Commissioner could even investigate a case which had been heard and decided upon in a court of law and could in effect be called upon to act as a court of appeal following a decision of a properly constituted court of the land. I do not think that that position can possibly be accepted.
Therefore, we have put down this Amendment, which restores to the Commissioner the guidance which the Bill originally gave him about the kind of case in which it was proper for him to intervene, that is to say, that if he was satisfied that in the particular case it was not reasonable to except the complainant to have pursued his alternative remedies. But we have accepted the


decision of the Committee that this discretion should exist in relation both to tribunals and courts of law.
I need not weary the House by repeating the argument on why we originally sought to draw that distinction. One of the factors that influenced us was that we were anxious that there should not be any occasion for a clash between the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Council on Tribunals. I undertook to the Committee to consult the Secretary to the Council as to whether it would see any objection to this extension. We are informed that the Council would have no objection to the provision, and we are accordingly putting forward the Amendment in this way.
The result will be that where a person has an alternative remedy, whether to a tribunal or a court of law, that will not be an absolute bar to his case being investigated by the Commissioner, who will have a discretion in such cases as to whether or not to investigate. If he thinks that the case should more properly be dealt with by the alternative proceedings he will say so and, in the exercise of his discretion, will refuse to investigate. But if he is satisfied that there are good reasons why the complainant should not have recourse to those other remedies he will then be able to act.
I hope that this will meet the substance of the argument put forward in Committee.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: I should first like to express my disappointment with the Government's decision to delete these words. We had a very full discussion about this matter in Committee when no one accepted the position taken up by the Financial Secretary. Even when there was not full agreement with the Amendment then proposed, there was dissatisfaction with his attitude.
My hon. and learned Friend has endeavoured to meet the objection by this Amendment. There is some advance, but it is not enough. The provision gives the Parliamentary Commisioner the right to intervene in a case when he is satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect the person aggrieved to resort or have resorted to a tribunal, court of appeal, or whatever it may be. There is no right where the matter has already

been dealt with by a tribunal or court. It is only when the person concerned could have resorted to it, or might resort to it.
This seriously circumscribes the Parliamentary Commissioner's power and I would have thought that it was very much simpler to have said that where there were particular circumstances, it was right for the Parliamentary Commissioner to intervene. I fully agree that it would be wrong to constitute the Commissioner as an appeal court from the tribunal or court which hears the case, but there must be circumstances—and they were cited in Committee—when there are borderline cases when, in special circumstances, it could be left to the good sense of the Parliamentary Commissioner to deal with the matter.
I would have been more satisfied if my hon. and learned Friend's interpretation of the powers of the Commissioner had been right. I quoted a certain case to him and he replied:
But he tells the Committee…that on the matters that he has considered, the case is so strong that he feels sure there must have been some error somewhere. All I can say to him is that if he were able to convince the Parliamentary Commissioner of the fact, if he could establish a prima facie case to the same extent, that this was a case which cried out for investigation—then, within his discretion, the Parliamentary Commissioner would be able to look into the matter and investigate it".
He went on to say:
There is a possible administrative complaint which legitimately he could investigate. Is it being said, 'I am not complaining about the decision of the tribunal. What I am complaining about is that the administrative action of the Department was at fault, in failing to lay before the tribunal properly the information which it, the Department, had and which it alone had'. If that is what the allegation is, then, as I have said, that is a matter which can be investigated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 8th November, 1966; c. 160–2.]
I said that I would be very much more satisfied if I felt that the Financial Secretary's interpretation was correct, but as I read the words I think that in such a case the Commissioner would be bound to say that he was debarred under Clause 5(2,a), because it was an action in which the person aggrieved had a right of appeal to a tribunal or court. It is doubtful whether that interpretation is right.
Surely the proper thing is to try to clarify the position by inserting words


which make it clear that the view which my hon. and learned Friend is putting forward is right. I can only express the hope that between now and discussion in another place he will look at the matter again to see whether he cannot clarify the provision by some further words.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I rise only to ask the Financial Secretary one question. I am glad that he has proposed the Amendment for I think that it is an improvement. It says that the Commissioner may conduct an investigation
if satisfied that in the particular circumstances it is not reasonable…
I take that to mean that the Parliamentary Commissioner alone is the judge of what is or is not reasonable in such circumstances and that he may not be challenged on that and will not normall be expected even to give a reason. I think that that is most desirable, but I should like to have it officially stated.

Mr. Hale: I am grateful for the crumbs which fall from the master's table, even if rarely. This Amendment is a great improvement and I congratulate the Financial Secretary on introducing it. I gather that he knows—and I gather that this is the view of the House—that it excludes from consideration any grievance arising before the date on which the Bill comes into force. I read it like that. I wish that my hon. and learned Friend would say who is a person who
has or had a remedy
which he has failed to pursue. The trouble is that a grievance may arise the day before. This may be a matter for experts. I never call myself a draftsman.
The second problem which arises is: what is an unexhausted remedy, how does one know what remedies one has and what remedies are within reasonable power? I know that the question of the former Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is excluded from the Measure, and there are powerful reasons for it, because, if it were not, the Commissioner would have about 50,000 more cases to deal with almost at once, some genuine, some far from genuine.
May I quote a purely legal example from the Ministry to exemplify the point. It concerns a case reported in The Times ten days before Christmas on a decision

of the House of Lords. The House of Lords, by a majority, affirmed the decision arrived at by the Court of Appeal, by a majority, which reversed the Divisional Court, which supported the Commissioner of National Insurance in deciding that the decision of the medical appeal tribunal supporting the medical referee and disagreeing on a point of fact with a previous decision of a commissioner which reversed the previous medical referee in agreeing with the medical report. This was an appeal to the House of Lords by the Minister which was lost. I could ask a few questions about the cost of it when I have a little time free.
Who could have advised that lady about Mr. William Charles Crocker, who is very famous for some of his admirable legislative activities, that the applicant had not exhausted his right until he had been before four medical tribunals, two independent commissioners, two judges of the Divisional Court, three judges in the Court of Appeal and five judges in the House of Lords on an issue under an Act by which I was told, on the day I made my maiden speech, that we were cutting all the lawyers out and not having any more nonsense about going to the county court and getting a decision?
I sit once a month in Oldham. People still think that I am a solicitor. I keep telling them I am not and the Chancery Division have said that I am not for Income Tax reasons. Day by day problems are postulated as to what are people's rights. When I get in a mess, I send them to the citizens advice bureau. Who knows the answer to these questions under this highly complex régime? How is the Commissioner always to be able to get a determination?
If I have the privilege of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or Mr. Speaker's eye on Friday, I hope to develop a wholly different matter. Recently, on an urgent point of Customs duty, a man was asked for £30 by Thomas Cook and Son Limited in respect of a wedding gift valued at £29 10s. I approached the Board of Trade which said "There is tax involved. You should approach the Treasury". So I approached both of them and the Treasury said that it would look into the matter. I put down a Question about the tax and the Treasury


said that it was looking into it. At the precise moment when it looked as though somebody might say something, a brilliant genius in the Civil Service said, "But you used Thomas Cook. They are a nationalised industry. This is a matter for the Ministry of Transport". My constituent, the nicest of men, was very grateful in the end—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I am having some difficulty in relating what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the Amendment. Would he kindly indicate how it relates to the Amendment?

Mr. Hale: I do not think I should like to reply to that challenge precisely or to go into a dissertation in the strict terms of the Amendment. I thought that I was rendering a service to the House by delivering two speeches at once and as briefly as I could. I shall not therefore rise again when anything is called for discussion which will make these observations relevant.

Mr. MacDermot: With the leave of the House to speak again, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), I think in his disappointment at the form of this Amendment, was really repeating a point of view which he expressed in Committee, which is that he would really like the Parliamentary Commissioner have power to act as a court of appeal from tribunals. With great respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I do not think this would be a workable system. We have a system of tribunals, and in some cases machinery of appeal from them, and there are supervisory powers and supervisory courts, and also we have the Council on Tribunals, from another point of view, supervising the work of those tribunals. I think, therefore, that there would be no end to this system if a disappointed complainant could at any time have yet a further stage and have his complaint heard and investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner.
His second question, on which he quoted some words of mine in Committee, related to a much narrower point. We were imagining the situation where there was before a tribunal a case in which the facts were peculiarly in the knowledge of the Department, as frequently they will be, where the case had

been heard and decided by the tribunal against the complainant, perfectly properly decided on evidence presented, and then information came to light to indicate, for example, that the Department in error had omitted to lay before the tribunal some very relevant material—some medical reports, whatever it might be.
I do not want to lay down the law for all cases, but certainly I think that in some such cases there would be no way to get a case reopened by the tribunal; it would not be a matter which could be the subject of an appeal to the tribunal itself. If that is so then it would not be excluded by the words of Clause 5(2,a), and accordingly the point that I was making was that in those circumstances that failure of the Department to lay the proper facts before the tribunal could be the subject of complaint on an administrative act by the Department. It would be a wholly exceptional case. This is a very fine point, but I was seeking to try to draw a distinction between the Commissioner acting as an appellate tribunal from the court itself or from the tribunal itself and as investigating some administrative failure in the steps leading up to the actual proceedings by the court.
As to the other two points on which I was asked to give an answer, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) asked whether I would confirm that the wording of the Amendment means that it would be solely for the Parliamentary Commissioner to decide whether in the circumstances it was reasonable for the complainant not to have pursued the alternative remedy. I do give that assurance: it would be entirely within his own discretion to decide.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) suggested that the Commissioner would only be investigating matters arising out of cases occurring after the date of the passing of the Bill. I think that if he looks at Clause 6(3) he will see that that is not the case.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 4, at the end to insert:
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising or requiring the Commissioner to


review by way of appeal any decison taken by a government department or other authority in the exercise of a discretion vested in that department or authority.
This Amendment is largely a drafting matter and seeks to overcome the criticism that was made both on Second Reading and in Committee that the Bill as drafted does nowhere in terms exclude the discretionary decisions from the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner's powers. We take the view that this is inherent in the word "maladministration" itself, but as there was obviously wide feeling among hon. Members on both sides that it was desirable to make this explicit, we propose adding these words which, we believe, will achieve that object. Perhaps the only point on the wording on which I might comment is the use of the words "by way of appeal". We have said that
Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising or requiring the Commissioner to review by way of appeal any decision"—
in effect, in exercise of a discretionary power. The reason why we put that in is that we do not want this Amendment to be limiting. As was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Lord President in moving the Second Reading, there are matters in relation to discretionary decisions which will be within the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I can sum it up by calling them matters where the complaint is that the proper administrative procedures were not followed before the stage was reached when the discretionary decision had to be taken. We do not wish to exclude that. The intention of the Amendment and, I believe, its effect is that the Parliamentary Commissioner will be free to investigate all matters of administration —everything, in effect, except a discretionary decision itself.

8.45 p.m.

Sir J. Hobson: This is a very important Amendment, although the Financial Secretary may say that it is only a drafting one. It goes to the very root of what the Bill is intended to do. By its wording, as I read it and as the courts and the Commissioner would be bound to read it, if we remove all right of investigation into any matter concerning a Government Department or other authority which is exercising a discretion vested in that

Department or authority, we impose a very heavy limitation upon the capacity of the Parliamentary Commissioner to protect the citizen and give him a remedy when a really silly decision has been made.
The Financial Secretary has said that one can look at the procedural background to the discretionary decision, but it is a little difficult—as anyone who has ever administered a Department knows—to distinguish between what is the administrative background and what is a discretion. There is a discretionary element in the way in which any Department is run.
Everyone knows that within each Department there are certain rules and regulations about what is done or not done, and the Minister decides that he will or will not in particular circumstances seek the advice of some other authority. Of course, that is a discretionary decision on his part and, to some extent, a policy decision on the way in which he will run his Department. Therefore, the whole of the preliminary machinery which any Government Department goes through before the actual final decision is taken is, of itself, part of the exercise of administrative discretions by the Minister.
I have always thought that this provision in the Clause would emasculate the Bill. It will leave practically no circumstances in which a Minister will not be able to say, "I took that decision because I had the choice of consulting A or consulting a large class of people. I took that decision and, as a matter of fact, in this Department we never bother to ask the other Departments about questions of this sort. This is something that I have decided, and you, the ombudsman, are not entitled to investigate the matter."
The words, "in the exercise of a discretion" could not be wider. A discretion means no more than liberty of choice. It means, according to the Oxford Dictionary, "The liberty of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits". It also means something which is "to be settled or disposed of by the wish of" the individual.
Pretty well everything within a Department is disposed of on the wish of the Minister and on each and every occasion when the ombudsman asks him, "Why


did not you do this, that or the other", or asks why this or that step was not taken, the answer will be, "Because we decided that in cases of this sort we would not do that".
I have always thought that the key to the position of the Parliamentary Commissioner was the extent to which he could look at the administrative decisions of a Department, both the internal administrative decisions and the decisions affecting the citizen. Unless he can do both, the citizen will be wholly deprived of any benefit of an investigation by the ombudsman. Only where the Minister is under an obligation to take a particular decision and, therefore, has no discretion himself will the ombudsman be able to complain. In any other case, if there is a choice of courses of action, the Minister can say, "This was my decision. You cannot look at that and there can be no investigation by you, the ombudsman".
I appreciate the Government's desire to shield all Ministers and civil servants from the investigation of the ombudsman in any circumstances where it can be said that the Minister had any responsibility. I quite see that that is the basis upon which the Government are proceeding, but the result of their taking that attitude is that the ombudsman will be almost totally excluded from the files of Government Departments. The result of that attitude and this Amendment is that the Government are now seen to be thinking that discretion is the better part of valour and they are running clean away from the ombudsman.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: This is not a drafting Amendment. It goes to the heart of the whole Bill. I recall the words of the Lord President of the Council on Second Reading:
The knowledge that the Parliamentary Commissioner is there, eager to get to work; the knowledge that he can act only in response to complaints from Members and is, therefore, in the strictest sense a servant of the House; the knowledge that when he acts he will be able to go wider and further than anyone except the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral—this knowledge should surely put heart into those back benchers who feel they count for not much more than Lobby fodder."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 43.]
Those words certainly put some heart into this back bencher. Foolishly, I sup-B,

pose, we imagined that this brave new Bill would be a step forward and would give us greater power to control the Executive. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman how powerful Ministers can be. He was a very powerful Minister himself. He knows also—he has said it often—how weak Parliament is and how largely ineffective are our powers as Members to undertake detailed criticism.
I had hoped, as many hon. Members on both sides did, that the Bill would be a real step forward to alter that situation. It is nothing of the kind. Moreover, if this Amendment, described so innocently as a drafting Amendment, is accepted, it will be the final nail in the coffin of the Bill.
On this Amendment, Parliament has to take a very important decision, a decision fundamental to the whole Bill. Are we to take the narrow view and restrict the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner to cases in which the Minister has no discretion at all? Is that the object? It seems to be the Government's view now, although it was not their view at the time of the Standing Committee. In Committee, the Financial Secretary said:
We do not want to exclude from his activities anything which relates to discretionary decisions, because we may get what are true faults of administration, leading up to a discretionary decision, with the result that when the decision was taken it was affected by a fault of administration. In other words, one can fault the manner in which it was taken.
It is worth reading the whole passage because this is such an important matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on:
The hon. Member for Kensington, South, in moving his Amendment, gave some instances of the kind of thing he had in mind —that the person who made the decision had not all the relevant material before him, that some relevant evidence which ought to have been drawn to his attention was not, by the neglect or obtuseness of someone who ought to have laid that evidence before him, or that he based his decision on irrelevant matter, on irrelevant evidence. Now, if this can be shown, if this is the complaint, this is a matter to be investigated, as we conceive it, by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, because he is looking to see whether the proper administrative process has been carried Out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee 1st November, 1966; c. 69.]


That was the argument put forward by the Financial Secretary, and it seemed a wholly good one at the time. Now he is putting forward a very much narrower interpretation of the powers. The alternative is to take the bolder course and rely simply on the exclusion provided in subsections (2,a) and (b) of this Clause.
The cases which usually come to hon. Members concern planning decisions, because these are the ones which worry people most. Their livelihoods are affected by them, and yet these are the very cases in which we are utterly powerless to assist. A citizen applies for planning permission to build, say, a bungalow. The R.D.C. turns down his application. He appeals, and waits for five months. His appeal is then heard, and he waits another five months before the gets the result of the appeal. He learns that his appeal has been turned down, and he comes to see us. We then write to the Minister. I have done this on many occasions, as I expect most hon. Members have. We write to the Minister asking him to reconsider the appeal, and we get the same reply each time, "There is no power to look at the matter again".
Rightly or wrongly the constituent feels that he has a genuine grievance, that somewhere along the line there has been a failure by the Minister to act in a proper way. It may be said that in those circumstances he has recourse to the courts, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said during the debate, this is a very cumbersome and expensive procedure, and these appeals do not go to the courts except in very few instances. The people affected live with their bitterness for the rest of their lives.
The more I think about the Financial Secretary's speech, the more I am puzzled about the Government's attitude to this matter, and I am certain that many people outside the House will be equally puzzled. I feel that if the Amendment is accepted it will undermine the very purpose of the Bill, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who is an enthusiastic—

Mr. MacDermot: All that the Amendment seeks to do is to make explicit the interpretation of the Bill which my right hon. Friend gave during the Second Reading debate and which was, inciden-

tally, supported by a number of hon. Gentleman opposite in Committee. Indeed, I think that it puts into other words an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth).

Mr. Awdry: I realise that the hon. and learned Gentleman takes that view, but that was not the view taken by my right hon. Friend. The Amendment says:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising or requiring the Commissioner to review by way of appeal any decision taken by a government department…
It says that nothing in this Section authorises the Commissioner to look at any decision.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman must read the whole Amendment. It refers to
any decision…taken in the exercise of a discretion vested in that department or authority".

Mr. Awdry: That does not weaken my point. I am certain that there are many hon. Members on this side of the House, and perhaps on the other side, too, who are anxious about this. We will emasculate the Bill if we take away from the Parliamentary Commissioner the right to look at the exercise of a discretion by a Minister.

Mr. Crossman: It is not true to say that we would emasculate the Bill, because in the speech to which the hon. Gentleman referred I made it clear that discretionary decisions, as the Whyatt Committee recommended, were excluded from the Bill. I said:
Discretionary decision, properly exercised, which the complainant dislikes but cannot fault the manner in which it was taken, is excluded by the Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 51.]
9.0 p.m.
After considerable discussion on this matter—in which we considered whether or not this was the proper thing to do —we made it clear, in Committee and on Second Reading, that this was the interpretation. The Amendment does not alter anything but merely makes unambiguous what we candidly told hon. Members was the way we should deal with the issue. We have accepted the Whyatt Report, which suggested that it should be dealt with in this way, and it is, therefore, unfair to say that it is


being written into the Bill by this small Amendment.

Mr. Awdry: I am a solicitor and not a lawyer. The difficulty is that although this matter may have been fully argued and discussed—with undertakings and assurances given in Committee and on Second Reading—we must deal with the Bill as it appears before us. I may have got the wrong end of the argument, but as I see it—not as a lawyer—the Amendment does not have the purpose which the Financial Secretary is arguing it does have. I do not believe that it is a drafting Amendment. I have come to that decision having studied it carefully and I trust, therefore, that the Government will not pursue this Amendment.

Mr. Hooson: I am opposed to the Amendment on narrower grounds than those adduced by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). Whenever the ombudsman starts investigating a case, the Amendment could be immediately used as a shield by civil servants, who could say, "We are exercising our discretion", and many weeks would go by while the matter is being considered. In his intervention, the Leader of the House referred to his speech in Committee. I did not find the position enhanced by what he said about a discretionary decision being properly arrived at.

Mr. Crossman: "Exercised", not "arrived at".

Mr. Hooson: Suppose it is exercised on wrong or erroneous grounds. We are concerned here with administrative injustice or injustice suffered as a result of maladministration. One of the things the ombudsman should be entitled to investigate is a discretionary decision vested in a Department which has been arrived at through a completely erroneous process. Suppose a decision has been arrived at through a mistake which could be put right. Is the ombudsman to be excluded from considering that?

Mr. MacDermot: He is the Parliamentary Commissioner and not an ombudsman.

Mr. Hooson: I am using the term which is in common use. In all the discussions before the Bill was introduced he was known as an ombudsman.

In any case, it would be wrong for the Government to persist with the Amendment in the face of such criticism. If the Financial Secretary considers that the Amendment is not really necessary, it should be left out because the view is widely held that it will circumscribe the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner and provide a shield behind which civil servants will be able to hide for many weeks.

Sir Lionel Heald: I regret that I was not a member of the Standing Committee. However, I have taken a great interest in the subject for a long time and, despite the attitude of the Leader of the House, I apprehend that we are entitled to discuss this matter at such length as we think proper.
I cannot help being worried about this matter because we have for nearly two years been pointing out that the ambit of jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner should be seriously considered. In September 1964, a statement was published in the New Stateman by the present Foreign Secretary in which he said what it was intended that the Parliamentary Commissioner would be able to investigate. He stated:
The Commissioner will he concerned with those episodes where all the authorities have behaved correctly, yet the result is absurd or unjust.
That right hon. Gentleman, for whom we have the greatest respect and who takes a keen interest in the rights of the individual, did not talk about "maladministration". He did not use any ambiguous language of that kind. He made it clear that if there had been an injustice it would be the job of the Labour Government's great Parliamentary Commissioner to right it. Since then we have been plunging in this morass of the expression "maladministration".
Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the whole of the proceedings and I have found that there was intense discussion about the word "maladministration" and its repercussions in relation to discretion. We have been left in a great state of uncertainty. I share the fear of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) that the Amendment—although I accept that it is not intended to do this—might


have the effect, and I believe it will, of creating a danger that the whole value of this system will be vitiated.
Almost every decision that causes real hardship is a decision taken in the exercise of a Ministerial discretion. Sooner or later, somebody will have to decide whether or not it comes within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I do not think it could go to the courts and we may assume that the Parliamentary Commissioner will act in a judicial capacity. There is grave danger that, if we accept an Amendment like this, the Parliamentary Commissioner will take a narrow view of his duties. In reading what was said in Committee, I was astonished to find that on more than one occasion the reason given for not accepting Amendments was that to do so would overburden the Parliamentary Commissioner. In the case, for example, of the National Health Service, the reason given was not that he ought to be able to consider it, but that he would be overburdened. This great public benefit produced by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to enable grievances to be alleviated is to be withheld because there would be too many complaints. What an astonishing thing. The Amendment, as I read it, would cut that down very much indeed.
Time after time one hears the argument that the Minister in question had discretion and had the facts before him. Nobody suggests that he acted dishonestly or had improper evidence. He made his decision in the exercise of his discretion. The boundary of maladministration is a very difficult one to determine.
I feel great anxiety about the acceptance of the Amendment. I acquit the right hon. Gentleman of the intention to do what I have suggested might happen, but surely this is the moment when we should be entitled to deal with these things.
I end where I began. I was a little disturbed to find that when somebody got up and presented a logical and new argument the right hon. Gentleman said that this was all decided on Second Reading. These things are not decided on Second Reading. They are decided when the House of Commons finally expresses its opinion, and that is this evening.

Mr. Harold Gurden: The Amendment proves the critics right when they said that in the production of the Bill the Government had gone back on their promise to the electorate. Clearly, the Amendment shows that from the very beginning the Government had no intention of giving us an effective Parliamentary Commissioner, the Ombudsman as he was called at the General Election by the Government.
Almost the whole of the Bill will be pretty useless if the Amendment is passed. It would be interesting to know what the Parliamentary Commissioner would think about this and about his job if the Amendment is passed, because he will be in an awkward position to be told by any Minister or Ministry that they were only exercising their discretion—and that would apply not only to a Government Department, but to any authority. Those are the words of the Amendment. All the criticism which has been levelled from this side tonight will be amply justified if the Amendment is passed.
I cannot think why the Lord President of the Council puts up the argument that as a defence of the Amendment he has to say, "I told you so". Of course, he told us that this was his intention. We still say, however, that it makes nonsense of the Bill. I hope that the Government will have the decency to withdraw it.

Mr. Hogg: When I was at my first school, we had a rather jolly schoolboy expression for "swindle". We called it "swiz". A swiz was not something which involved any particular moral turpitude on the part of those who were guilty of the swiz but meant that those who were the victims of the swiz somehow felt with justification that they had been swindled.
As the House knows from my speech on Second Reading, I have always regarded the ombudsman as a swiz. Now we have arrived at the moment of truth. We were told originally, in a very grandiloquent speech by the Leader of the House, that the ombudsman would deal with maladministration. We have never really been told what maladministration is. It may be that some esoteric ritual inside the Civil Service has not been observed. I do not regard that as maladministration. If Government policy is involved and injustice is suffered thereby.
we know that maladministration is not Government policy. If it requires legislation to put it right, that is not maladministration. I told the House on Second Reading that it excluded discretion, and I had the powerful support of the Lord President of the Council. The ghastly fact is that when that is excluded, nothing is left except a swiz. We on this side always knew that the whole thing was a swiz, but that was not spelt into the Bill. It did not write down in so many words in a Schedule, "This is a swiz".
The Financial Secretary has described the Amendment as a drafting Amendment. Despite what has been said by one of my hon. Friends, I agree that it is a drafting Amendment. The Bill was always drafted to be a swiz, and now it is spelt into the Bill. I shall vote against it.

Mr. MacDermot: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was a Member of a Government which considered the proposals upon which the Bill is based. They were proposals made in the Whyatt Report published by Justice. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says sotto voce that they were rejected. They were not rejected as being a swiz. Those proposals contained the important principle that the Parliamentary Commissioner should not act as a court of appeal to review every discretionary decision which was made in the course of Government.
It was realised in those proposals, and the reasons were fully set out, why it would not be a workable system if it was sought to give that power to the Parliamentary Commissioner. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that denuded of that power, the Parliamentary Commissioner is a swiz. That was not what his Government said when they rejected the idea. They did not say "We reject this because it would be a waste of time. We reject this because he would be a useless cipher if he did not have

Division No. 251.]
AYES
[9.17 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Boardman, H.
Cant, R. B.


Anderson, Donald
Booth, Albert
Carmichael, Neil


Archer, Peter
Boyden, James
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Coe, Denis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brooks, Edwin
Coleman, Donald


Bence, Cyril
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Concannon, J. D.


Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Binns, John
Buchan, Norman
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Crawshaw, Richard

Power to investigate discretionary decisions".

9.15 p.m.

The first objection and the first reason given by the Tory Administration for rejecting it was that the setting-up of a Parliamentary Commissioner—it was specifically related to the Justice proposals—would seriously interfere with the prompt and efficient dispatch of public business. In other words, the Conservative Government considered that such powers as we propose in the Bill should be given to the Commissioner would hold up the whole machinery of government. That was their first and major reason for rejecting it. That is the meaningless swiz, apparently. It is remarkable how right hon. and hon. Members opposite change their tune when they go from government into opposition.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for endorsing what I said at the outset, that this is a drafting Amendment. This is purely making clear and explicit that which we have said from the very outset was implicit in the Bill and was the scope of the Bill. A number of hon. Members opposite who have given careful thought to this have taken the same view as we have. I respect the attitude of those who, like the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), take a different view and would like to see the Commissioner act as an appellate court over all discretionary decision. If the Commissioner were to have that power, it would require an enormous addition to his staff for him to be able to review the whole field of discretionary decisions in government. I suggest that that would be unworkable and would bring the whole scheme into disrepute. For these reasons, I urge the House to accept the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 92.

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pentland, Norman


Dalyell, Tam
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Jones, Ht. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Dewar, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Randall, Harry


Dobson, Ray
Lawson, George
Reynolds, G. W.


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Ron. (Carlisle)
Richard, Ivor


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Eadie, Alex
Luard, Evan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Waith'stow, E.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Ellis, John
McBride, Neil
Rose, Paul


Ensor, David
McCann, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacDermot, Niall
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Finch, Harold
Macdonald, A. H.
Ryan, John


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McGuire, Michael
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Foley, Maurice
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John


Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Slater, Joseph


Forrester, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Small, William


Fowler, Gerry
MacPherson, Malcolm
Snow, Julian


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mapp, Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Gregory, Arnold
Marquand, David
Swingier, Stephen


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mason, Roy
Symonds, J. B.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mayhew, Christopher
Tinn, James


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Tuck, Raphael


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Urwin, T. W.


Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William
Varley, Eric G.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Haseldine, Norman
Murray, Albert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Henig, Stanley
Neal, Harold
Watkins, David (Consett)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Norwood, Christopher
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hilton, W. S.
Ogden, Eric
Whitaker, Ben


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian
Whitlock, William


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Oram, Albert E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas
Winnick, David


Howie, W.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur



Hunter, Adam
Park, Trevor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hynd, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Mr. Armstrong and


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hawkins, Paul
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Awdry, Daniel
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Baker, W. H. K.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pardoe, John


Batsford Brian
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Percival, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Holland, Phillp
Pink, R. Bonner


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hooson, Emlyn
Pym, Francis


BuchananSmith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hordern, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hunt, John
Roots, William


Campbell, Gordon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clark, Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott, Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Sharples, Richard


Cooke, Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cordle, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stainton Keith


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Summers, Sir Spencer


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fortescue, Tim
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, Raymond
Monro, Hector
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Grant, Anthony
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grant-Ferris, R.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wylie, N. R.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Murton, Oscar



Grieve, Percy
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey
Mr. Eyre and Mr. More.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nott, John

Mr. Crossman: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 4, at the end to insert:

(4) Her Majesty may by Order in Council amend the said Schedule 3 so as to exclude from the provisions of that Schedule such actions or matters as may be described in the


Order; and any statutory instrument made by virtue of this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
I hope that we shall find that hon. Members opposite, who were so moved and so stirred by their anxieties about the Bill being narrowed and made ineffective, will applaud my efforts in this Amendment to widen its extent, and that we shall have enthusiastic speeches supporting it.
The Amendment changes the Bill in an important respect. By it, we meet the feeling that, although it was wise in the first instance to have a very precise definition of the Parliamentary Commissioner's sphere of action, if we give him a sharp sword and powerful instrument and are precise about the areas that he should cover, we should also make it possible to extend those areas without a new Bill by including within his powers areas excluded in Schedule 3. That is what the Amendment does. It enables us by a negative Order—a simple Order in Council—to lay it down that either all or any part of the Schedule 3 areas which were excluded shall be included in the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) was rather hoity-toity at one stage, and suggested that the Government did not want to overburden the Commissioner, talking as though the Commissioner would have no work to do. We shall be interested to see, after one year's work and he reports to a Select Committee about the number of cases that he has dealt with, who is right. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that the Parliamentary Commissioner will not get a long roll of cases.
We have in Schedule 3 areas in which even the right hon. and learned Gentleman would think that the Parliamentary Commissioner and his subordinates would find a lot of work. For example, these areas include the actions of British consuls. This is one of the areas I would have liked to have covered, for it is one where people sometimes feel that they have been badly treated in going to a consul for help. Another area is in relation to overseas territories, while another covers the health services. We are including these in the Schedule in the sense that they can be covered by Order in

Council. Other areas include the Civil Service and the Armed Forces.
This Amendment means that we shall be able, if we see fit, to cover all these areas by Order in Council. I shall not dilate on this subject for long but I will point out that, in view of what the Opposition said on the last Amendment, they should welcome this one. If by any chance they were right and we have narrowed down unduly the Commissioner's powers to deal with cases under the present proposals, here we are now giving Parliament power to extend the areas of his work.
9.30 p.m.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary has reminded us, there has been a remarkable change in the Opposition's attitude. Less than three years ago they were complaining that the whole idea must stop because it was dangerous to sound Government. Now they complain that the Commissioner will have too little work to do. The conversion is welcomed as an encouraging symbol of their support for this concept and their belief, expressed in, I suppose, words of great sincerity, that the Commissioner will have too narrow terms of reference. Now we are giving power to extend the terms of reference by Order in Council so that action can be taken if the Opposition's predictions are fulfilled.

Mr. Roots: The Leader of the House claims certain credit for the Amendment and certainly one rives him credit for bringing it forward. But it will perhaps be known to the House—as he hinted—that the absence of any such power had caused great concern among the Opposition Members of the Standing Committee. He chose to twit us with, first of all, a disbelief in the principle of the ombudsman and what he might achieve. I see nothing inconsistent in being very suspicious of the ombudsman as a major constitutional remedy because, to use the simple phrase already applied, it was "a swiz." Possibly we may be able to shorten the word ombudsman to swiz, which would be an advantage, I suppose, in many respects.
But if we are to have an ombudsman, then it is absurd so to limit his powers by exclusion that one turns him not only into the swiz he started off as but into


a double swiz upon swiz. Our objective throughout has been that, if we are to have an ombudsman, it is wrong for the purposes of the public that they should be led to believe that they are going to get opportunities or rights through his powers which were not the case.
I was somewhat amazed to find the Leader of the House suggesting that Schedule 3 was designed to assist the ombudsman in limiting the work he would do. [Laughter.] I gather from the laughter that the House shares the absurdity of that which I had seen. At this time of night, I do not propose to take up a great deal of time. The Amendment gives a glimmer that it may be possible to correct the over-limited ambit of the Commissioner's powers on which both sides of the Committee were thoroughly dissatisfied. To that extent, the Amendment is welcome.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: If the right hon. Gentleman is so desperate for some praise of the objectives of the Bill, he might have a few words of faint praise from me, but I am not much impressed by the terms of his argument. He has described this as a sharp sword for the Commissioner, but I see no danger, in the present state of the Bill, that the Commissioner will cut himself with it.
I see the Amendment as an admission on the right hon. Gentleman's part that the powers in the Bill as it stands would scarcely suffice to pull the skin off a rice pudding. It is all very well to say that, at some future date, we may be able to give the public the things they really wanted to see in the Bill. This Amendment is indeed a sensible provision for which I argued in Committee. I said then that we should include such a provision, if the Government were so obstinate as to refuse these powers from the start. I should be interested to know what insuperable objection the right hon. Gentleman sees to bringing in now the actions of British consuls or matters of the Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Lord President answered the hon. Member he would be out of order.

Mr. Onslow: I was merely observing that, the Lord President having tantalised us by declaring that he had certain views. I would be interested to hear them

in due course. We shall no doubt have a debate on the matter then. To say that he has put in the Bill the means for Parliament ultimately to make it decent legislation is no commendation of it, but rather a condemnation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMPLAINTS.)

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 42, after 'Kingdom', to insert:
or on an installation in a designated area within the meaning of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 or on a ship registered in the United Kingdom or an aircraft so registered'.
It may be for the convenience of the House to consider with it Amendment No. 8.

Mr. Speaker: It is always as well if the occupant of the Chair knows beforehand, because he must protect the interests of the minority. If the Opposition have no objection, I have no objection. So be it.

Mr. MacDermot: These Amendments are to meet points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee. They are designed to ensure that the Parliamentary Commissioner will have power to investigate actions taking place on ships or aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, or on that part of the Continental Shelf which contains an installation or designated area within the meaning of the Continental Shelf Act, 1964.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 8, in page 4, line 43 at the end insert:
'or on such an installation, ship or aircraft'. —[Mr. MacDermot.]

Clause 8.—(EVIDENCE.)

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 6, line 15, to leave out 'or produce any document'.
It might be for the convenience of the House to discuss with it Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
The three Amendments are largely drafting Amendments, and are to meet a point which was raised in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). The intention of the Amendment is to make it clear that a mere passing reference to Cabinet proceedings would not be used to withhold


from the Commissioner the whole of documents which otherwise were not related to Cabinet proceedings, and would enable any part of that kind to be blacked out. He could then consider the rest of the documents.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 10, in page 6, line 16, after 'Cabinet', to insert:
'or to produce so much of any document as relates to such proceedings'.

No. 11, in page 6, line 19, to leave out 'or document' and insert 'document or part of a document'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Clause 10.—(REPORTS BY COMMISSIONER.)

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 7, line 5, at the end to insert:
(2) In any case where the Commissioner conducts an investigation under this Act, he shall also send a report of the results of the investigation to the principal officer of the department or authority concerned and to any other person who is alleged in the relevant complaint to have taken or authorised the action complained of.
The Amendment arises indirectly from a point made in Committee. In the Bill as drafted, the Parliamentary Commissioner is told to send reports which he makes under Clause 10(1) to the Member who asked for an investigation but not to anyone else. As a result, a Department or individual officer against whom a complaint has been made might never see the Parliamentary Commissioner's final report in a case where it exonerated him and might never be able to make public use of it.
It might occur that the complainant had sent a copy of his complaint to the Press, as sometimes happens, and that that had received publicity, but that when finally the report of the Commissioner came, completely exonerating the civil servant and refuting the report, he would have no means of knowing that, or of sending a copy of the exonerating report to the Press. It is therefore obvious that he, too, should be entitled to receive a copy of the report.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 14, at the end to insert:

'and may from time to time lay before that House such other reports with respect to those functions as he thinks fit'.
This is a new point which has arisen, I can inform the House, in effect out of a suggestion of the Parliamentary Commissioner designate. At the moment, under Clause 10, the powers of the Commissioner to make reports are, first, under subsection (1), in what might be called individual cases, to make an individual case report which would then be sent to the Member and the Department concerned. Normally, that would be an end of the matter as far as Parliament was concerned and normally the Select Committee as we envisage it would not he concerned with individual cases of that kind.
Secondly, there would be the special report procedure under subsection (2) by which when the Commissioner considered that there was an unresolved injustice, that he had reached deadlock with the Department and that the Department was not taking sufficient action, he would report to Parliament and that report would be considered by the Select Committee. Thirdly, there is the Commissioner's annual report which would be laid before Parliament and, one envisages, considered by the Select Committee and perhaps debated by the House.
The Amendment proposes a fourth kind of report, what I might describe as an ad hoc report by the Commissioner to Parliament in order to deal with some matter which he felt to be of sufficient importance that he should raise it with the House at once. In practice, this would mean raising it with the Select Committee. It might deal with procedural matters and, in the early stages of the working of the Bill, probably would. For example, one can see that it will be necessary for us, with the assistance of the Select Committee, to work out various procedural conventions about the way in which individual cases are handled. No doubt as a result of his experience and reflections on this matter the Commissioner would be able to lay before the House reports containing suggestions and proposals of that kind. As the Bill is drafted there is no procedure by which he can make a special report of that kind and that is a gap which the Amendment is intended to fill.

Mr. Buck: Is it intended that interim reports of this character will deal with


the sort of situation which could arise if there were a dispute between the Commissioner and the Department as to whether a matter was, for example, within a Minister's discretion and therefore subject to the Commissioner's investigation? Is that the sort of matter which the Financial Secretary envisages the Commissioner referring to Parliament in one of the interim reports to be determined by Parliament? If not, who does he envisage resolving such an issue?

Mr. MacDermot: I have not had notice of this question, but I think that I am

'such publication as is hereinafter mentioned shall be absolutely privileged, that is to say—



(a) the publication of any matter by the Commissioner in making a report to the House of Commons for the purposes of this Act;


5
(b) the publication of any matter by a member of that House in communicating with the Commissioner or his officers for those purposes or by the Commissioner or his officers in communicating with such a member for those purposes;


10
(c) the publication by such a member to the person by whom a complaint was made under this Act of a report or statement sent to the member in respect of the complaint in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section of this Act;



(d) the publication by the Commissioner to such a person as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section of a report sent to that person in pursuance of that subsection.'.

Mr. Speaker: With the Amendment can be discussed the Amendment to the Amendment—to leave out lines 5 to 7.

Mr. MacDermot: This Amendment is to meet various criticisms of the Bill as drafted which were made in Committee. Subsection (4) defines the scope of the absolute privilege which it is intended to confer on the Commissioner and Members of the House in relation to his reports. We were all agreed in Committee that we must be very responsible and careful as hon. Members not to go conferring absolute discretion for the purposes or the law of defamation beyond what was strictly proper. It was felt that the words were rather loose as drafted. The Amendment seeks to make the matter more precise and particularly to relate the privilege not to the document but to various acts of publication of the document. It is the publication in the technical sense in which that word is used in the law of defamation—the publishing of the document in certain circumstances—which is privileged and not the document which is privileged for all time and for all purposes.
right in saying that under the terms of the Bill it is for the Commissioner himself to decide whether he has jurisdiction in a particular matter. If he felt uncertain and wanted to seek further assistance from the House and from the Select Committee, the procedure which we are here proposing would be available to him and might be a useful way in which he could deal with such a situation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 7, line 15, to leave out from 'any' to the end of line 19 and to insert:
9.45 p.m.
We propose in the Amendment, first, that the publication of the report by the Commissioner to the House shall be absolutely privileged; I do not imagine that there will be much dispute about that. Secondly, any communication between Members and the Commissioner or his officers about a complaint which had been referred will be absolutely privileged. Thirdly, the publication of a report by the Member by sending it back to the complainant should be absolutely privileged. This is obviously necessary if we are to make the Member the channel of communication between the Commissioner and the complainant. The privilege will extend only to the publication of the report. If the Member chooses to comment on the case in his covering letter, he does this at the ordinary risk and peril which he runs in writing to his constituents on any matter. That is not the subject of absolute privilege; it is only the report itself. Fourthly, and perhaps obviously, when the Commissioner sends a copy of his report to the Department and to the civil servant complained against, that also will be privileged.
The Amendment to the Amendment raises the question of whether we should extend this to communcations between Members of Parliament and the Commissioner. There is plainly a balanced argument here. If we as Members write to a Minister in his Department, that is not subject to absolute privilege. That matter went to the Committee of Privileges. Some people think that Members should be protected, but as matters stand they are not protected.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite right. It went to the Committee of Privileges which reported that it should be the subject of privilege. The House differed from the Committee. That is the state of the law as it rests at the moment.

Mr. MacDermot: I am obliged for that amplification. I think that it accords with what I said.
When we raise constituency matters in the House at Question Time, on the Adjournment or during a Supply debate, they are the subject of absolute privilege. The question which we have to decide is whether, with this new procedure which we are devising for investigating complaints, we should regard communication between a Member and the Commissioner as occurring within the ambit of the House or as being on a par with communication between, a Member and a Minister.
As the, Parliamentary Commissioner is an officer of this House, and as we have cast this Bill in such a way as to make him available to Members as an instrument to assist them in their responsibility of safeguarding the rights of citizens, we thought it right that Members should have the complete freedom which results from that absolute privilege. We do not see that there are any risks or dangers attaching to this, and it is for this reason that we have included that also in the Amendment.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member may speak on it, but not move it.

Mr. Grieve: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I want to help the hon. and learned Member. He may speak to the Amendment to the Amendment. It at the end of the debate he wishes to move it formally and to divide on it I will permit that.

Mr. Grieve: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker.
The problem before the House has been very succinctly expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. In a Bill which is designed to protect the rights and liberties of the subject it seems to me that we in this House must be particularly careful to see that other rights and other liberties are not cut down or put in jeopardy. One of the most precious rights of the subject is in his reputation. One of his most precious liberties is the right to protect his reputation by action for defamation in the courts if his reputation is attacked even on an accasion of qualified privilege, if it should be maliciously attacked.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he conceived and the Government conceived that for the purposes of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the proper exercise of his functions it was right not only that communications between him and the House, but communications by a Member reporting his statements, publication by a Member, to a person who had made a complaint, of the ombudsman's, the Parliamentary Commissioner's, decision, and the matter contained in paragraph (d)—all these were necessary; and he went on to say that, in his view, it was necessary that the publication of any matter, by a Member of the House communicating with the Commissioner, or the Commissioner with a Member of the House, also should be the subject of absolute privilege.
It is there that I join issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman. This goes further than the privilege which exists to protect the Member communicating with a Minister, and I am bound to say that I do not see the difference in principle between communications between a Member, forwarding a complaint from one of his constituents, and a Minister, and the communications which hereafter, when this Bill becomes law, will be made by Members to the Parliamentary Commissioner.

Mr. Hale: If I get a letter from Korea saying, "I am a British soldier serving here still; I have been charged, and condemned to death; and have been denied my right of appeal, and they are going to shoot me a week on Tuesday" and I get it on Monday, what are the communications I make to protect myself from libel in case the letter is not from a British soldier even though it bears the stamps and has got all the particulars? Surely, there is case after case—I thought the Strauss ruling was all tripe—but there is case after case where it is incumbent upon a Member of Parliament, with the possibility of investigation, to express, with discretion and tact, and without making unnecessary allegations against anybody, tremendously important and tremendously urgent matters.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it enables me to make more clearly the point which I trust I was already making to the House. If the hon. Member takes straight away to the Minister, as he obviously will, the urgent complaint which he has received, in the terms in which he received it, nobody could possibly impugn that or accuse him of malice in the doing of it. The same would apply to a communication between an hon. Member and the Parliamenttary Commissioner.
It is very important these days that the umbrella of absolute privilege, which covers anything which we say or do in this Chamber, should not be taken further than is absolutely necessary to cover the actions of hon. Members in this House or when they are acting in their capacity as Members outside the Chamber. We would not be doing this House a service by carrying the protection of absolute privilege further than is necessary. It is not necessary, in my submission, in this case.
Hon. Members may adduce cases, but I can conceive of no case where the action of a Member acting honestly in carrying to the Commissioner a complaint he has received from a constituent or someone whose interests he is rightly looking after, can be impugned, unless he goes further and makes himself guilty of malice in the doing of it; and, if he does that, why should he be protected?
The same consideration applies in the reverse direction, to the Commissioner himself in his communications with an hon. Member. In those cases, the ordinary law of the land, the ordinary qualified privilege which would prevail in such a case where they both have an interest, is quite sufficient to protect the hon. Member, and to protect the Commissioner, and to go further is to make a grave inroad into the rights and liberties of the subject whom we are hoping to protect.

Sir D. Glover: I hesitate to intervene in what seems to be a lawyers' argument, but I rise to support the arguments put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). I will be quite honest and say that, when I listened to the Financial Secretary, I saw a great deal in his argument.
If I can diverge for a moment, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) always seems to have constituents who are going to be shot in 24 hours. I have been a Member of this House for 15 years and none of my constituents ever seem to get shot.

Mr. Hale: I came to this House on one occasion, almost by accident, on a Monday morning, when four men were at the place of execution and were to be hanged that night. Two of them are still alive as a result of the fact that I got to the House that morning. Let us not be too facetious about these matters.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member is a good friend of mine. I hope he will accept that I was only pulling his leg. I know that he has done a great deal in the cause of human justice.
It appears to me that my hon. and learned Friend has a stronger argument than the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I accept that, if I were writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner, I would want to say everything under complete privilege. But suppose that this week I received a letter from one of my constituents saying that he was insured with X insurance company, and I wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner saying that it was one of the "shark" companies and he ought to investigate, but, in fact, it was one of the soundest and straightest companies in the country. In that circumstance, I ought not to be covered by privilege, because I am


making a subjective judgment on the results of the publicity which has gone out, and I am ruining the reputation of a perfectly sound firm. I do not think that in that case I should be completely covered. It is a very good salutary discipline for Members of Parliament in those conditions to have to send it to the Parliamentary Commissioner, saying, "I have had this complaint from one of my constituents. I have no knowledge of whether the allegations are right or wrong, but, if I use my influence as a Member of Parliament"—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER BILL

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.

Sir D. Glover: In that circumstance, we ought not to be covered by complete privilege. When there is emotional feeling aroused generally, when, perhaps, there is a campaign being run by the hon. Member for Oldham, West or by the hon. Member for Ormskirk, it is only too easy, if we think that we are covered by privilege as Members of Parliament, to write to the Commissioner making allegations which we cannot prove, which may eventually become public, and which may ruin the reputation of all sorts of people, private individuals, firms and so on.
It is a salutary discipline for Members of Parliament, when writing to the Commissioner, to realise that we are covered to a limit only and not completely covered. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept the Amendment to his Amendment.

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: I find it very difficult to understand the purport of the Amendment. I may have misunderstood, but I gather

that the intention is to delete paragraph (b) of the Government Amendment, which would mean that, when the Parliamentary Commissioner sent his report or statement to the Member of Parliament, the sending of it and its receipt by the Member would not then be subject to absolute privilege. But the anomaly then is that, when the Member sends the same report or statement to his constituent or complainant, it is covered by absolute privilege.
I find it so illogical that I must oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Ian Percival: Like my hon. Friends, I am prepared to limit my remarks to paragraph (b) of the Government Amendment, and I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to have another think about it. With respect, the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) has, understandably, confused different parts of the Amendment. As I understand it, paragraph (b) deals simply with what is said by a Member in communicating with the Commissioner. This is the important thing. That is what it says and, if I am wrong, the hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me. However, that is the understanding, and it is on that basis that the Amendment has been moved.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to say that there was a nice balance here between two possible views. I agree that the Parliamentary Commissioner should be given absolute privilege and his report must be privileged when it is sent on; otherwise, the thing is made a nonsense. All we are concerned with here is what privilege should attach to a Member of Parliament in the part he takes. That, perhaps, puts it more simply. At all events, that is what concerns me—the degree of privilege which a Member of Parliament should have in his dealings with the Parliamentary Commissioner and with his constituent in relation to these matters.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was a nice balance here and one had to choose between two alternatives. On the one hand, there is the qualified privilege which Members have in dealing with Ministers. On the other hand, there is the absolute privilege enjoyed in everything done in the House. As I understand his argument, the hon.
and learned Gentleman then goes on to say, "The Parliamentary Commissioner being a servant of the House, the closer analogy is with the second of those two and there should, therefore, be absolute privilege".
I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider this. I do not think that that is the right way to approach it. The right way to approach is that the Member should have the minimum of privilege necessary to enable him to do his job. What is the case for giving him more privilege than he enjoys in connection with communications to Ministers? Is there any case for giving him greater privilege than that?
My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has given at least one case which illustrates the desirability of not giving Members any greater privileges than are necessary to enable them to do their jobs conscientiously. So far I have heard no reason advanced to the House, save this reasoning by analogy, which I suggest is not a good approach to it, why Members should have more than the qualified privilege. As my hon. Friend said, there is a danger that points like this can lead to the discussion becoming a lawyer's debate. It might, therefore be as well to remind the House that if subsection (b) is left out altogether a Member will have complete privilege unless he is acting maliciously, because in every such communication there must be a common interest between him and the Parliamentary Commissioner. He will, therefore, be entirely privileged unless he is acting maliciously.
Before I vote for the Amendment, or do not vote for the Amendment to the Amendment, whichever is the correct way of putting it, I should like to be satisfied that we need more protection than we will have even without subsection (b).

Mr. Hale: It is strange that on a perfectly innocuous and apparently unimportant discussion we should find ourselves from time to time back to the very elements of the virtues, duties, and responsibilities of this House, and freedom of speech is one of them. Hon. Gentlemen opposite use the word "malicious". It has a horrid sound—of malice aforethought. What does

malicious mean? It means a lack of care.

Mr. Hogg: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hale: Yes, indeed, in this connection. Perhaps they will say that it means a reckless lack of care. Let us have the definition. We are talking, not about crime, but about libel, a statement written without taking steps to verify it, a statement written with a reckless lack of care, if one likes.

Mr. MacDermot: I think I am right in saying that "malicious" has different means for different purposes in the law of defamation. For this purpose it is spite or ill-will.

Mr. Hale: I have had a fairly active experience of libel cases, right up to the House of Lords. One of the present important questions was laid in a case of mine by a unanimous decision of the House of Lords. I agree that malice in commercial matters means precious little, but something that could be called deliberate, and even a last-minute deliberation.
In establishing malice it is essential to establish no more than the making of a statement with such a lack of care that the jury can do it. In any event it is a decision for the jury. The finding is still a decision for the jury, and therefore it is a decision of fact. There it is. It is not very germane to my argument in any event. I was merely trying to deal with what the hon. Gentleman said.
I think that the argument advanced by the other side is completely dishonest. I say this with respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite. What was the example quoted by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover)? The hon. Member for Ormskirk referred to insurance companies. I assure him that I get hundreds of letters, of which at least 75 per cent. represent cases brought to my notice by my constituents. The hon. Gentleman is right. We do tend not to say what we think about people, not even about our own Ministers, and this is an inhibition which sometimes becomes extremely pressing.
Nevertheless, I have to rely on the letters I receive. The hon. Member for Ormskirk said that the letters he receives are always urgent. That, too, is true.
They may be concerned with trifling matters or they may be of great moment. About a month ago I received a letter from a lady stating that she had not received a receipt from a firm from which she had purchased a certain commodity. I wrote to the best people in Oldham, excellent agents, and got her the receipt she wanted a couple of days later. I then received a letter from the lady saying that she was very thankful and that I should be made Prime Minister. I wrote back thanking her and saying that I entirely agreed but that that might take a little longer to procure.
While this and similar matters may be the subjects of the occasional joke, they are serious grievances to the people who raise them. We must act on the information that is given to us, often given by people who are strangers to us, on matters which we cannot investigate or check. We receive letters from people who are in mental hospitals, in confinement and so on and often the allegations are made—made, I am sure in such a way that the writers are careful not to repeat allegations which they cannot substantiate. While we are not entitled to justify, if that is the best word to use, such allegations, we are at least entitled—and this is part of our duty—to put these matters to the Ministers concerned and say that we seek to put the grievances right.
If we have made an investigation and then consider the question of reporting a matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner, if we are in communication with him, should we say that that burden—of reporting the matter to him—should not be placed upon us? After all, we are in the position of counsel. Counsel's privilege is absolute. Judicial privilege is absolute. The privilege of the Parliamentary Commissioner will be absolute. Why should we be the only people who, without having anything like the services which are available to some people, may find ourselves in difficulty because of this?

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a lot out of this. When we write to a Minister we are covered by qualified privilege. In the case I cited, if I wrote to the ombudsman and said, "This is one of those sharks",

that would be a grave libel. But if I wrote saying "This is one of the 34 companies cited by the Minister in the House", it would not be a grave libel. That is not limiting the powers of the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman appears to be trying to allow hon. Members to say the most scurrilous things about people who cannot defend themselves and which should not be said until such matters have been proven.

Mr. Hale: This business of it being only qualified privilege when one writes to a Minister was one of the arguments used in the Strauss case, which was a special case based on rather special grounds and which involved a decision which many people disputed at the time. I have never claimed privilege. I dislike the assertion of privilege for the House. I dislike the idea of bringing people before the House for saying things which we know to be true but which they have expressed with a certain amount of violence. I dislike the exercise of privilege for the House, except the privilege incumbent in the performance of an hon. Member's duty.
Having imposed on us by the Bill a duty which I regarded with grave doubts when it was first postulated, hon. Gentlemen opposite now wish to enforce on me the duty of acting as a judge on the veracity, integrity and honesty of my constituents. I have always taken the view that my duty is to act as a channel of communication between the complainant and the throne—the Minister being the throne in this case—and that if any of my constituents had a grievance I would put it before the relevant Minister.
10.15 p.m.
I have also always taken the view that, faced with any grievance, I should not express personal approval or otherwise but merely associate myself with the points put. However, when I have put my case and have tried my hardest to see that justice is done, I am unable at that stage to do more. But hon. Gentlemen opposite now want me to have the burden of writing to my constituent saying, "I did put your view forward but either I have come to the conclusion that justice has already been done or that your case is not worthy of being submitted to the Parliamentary Commissioner, either because of its lack of importance or because


it is not an urgent matter". It is a difficult obligation to put on one to come to the conclusion that it is proper that a certain course should be taken in those terms. If an hon. Member is to do that, he should be able to perform the task unshackled and be privileged in communicating with the Commission and in receiving communications. That should apply to any reports he must make and which are almost inevitably ex parte. The evidence has come from one side only, but the replies come from possibly a Minister or others on the other side.

Mr. MacDermot: I will reply now since the House will, no doubt, wish to come to a conclusion on this matter. The matter we are discussing is not new in the Amendment. It is one of the points which was covered in the original drafting of the Bill.
I think we are agreed that it would not be right for us to confer this absolute privilege on ourselves unless it is necessary to enable us to do our job conscientiously. I do not believe that it is putting the dilemma correctly to say that the question is whether we need to be protected even when we are acting with malice. That is not the point. The issue is whether we need to be protected against the allegation that we are acting with malice. The matter was put succinctly by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) in Committee, when he spoke about the absolute privilege which it was proposed to confer on the Parliamentary Commissioner. He said:
There may be all kinds of lunatic who would sue the Commissioner for malice. It is unthinkable that he would publish anything with malice, but it is quite thinkable that a person will sue him, saying that he is guilty of malice. That is why judges are protected—not because it is thought that they will be malicious, but because it is thought that people might accuse them of being malicious."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 17th November, 1966; c. 319–20.]
This is the question of whether we need to confer upon Members of Parliament that absolute freedom which results from absolute privilege knowing that they cannot subsequently be made the subject of a vexatious piece of litigation by someone who will allege that they have been malicious.
Why should this be necessary for the proper performance of our task? One of

the things that we would have to do at times is to act as advocates for our complainant to try to persuade the Commissioner in the exercise of his discretion to take up the case. Not all Members of Parliament are trained lawyers and many hon. Members identify themselves strongly with constituents on whose behalf they take up cases. If they are in their way to argue strenuously for the grievance which they believe has existed, they may say, and I suggest it is right that they should be free to say, in what are fairly confidential communications between them and the Commissioner, what is in their heart and mind about the matter without feeling that they might be exposing themselves to the risk of having proceedings of this kind taken against them. That is why I suggest that it is right that we should confer this exceptional privilege on ourselves in this connection.

Question put and negatived.

Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Grieve: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out lines 5 to 7.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11.—(PROVISION FOR SECRECY OF INFORMATION.)

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 7, line 20, leave out
'his officers and his servants' and insert 'and his officers'.—[Mr. MacDermot]

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 7, line 29, to leave out
'or an offence of perjury'
and to insert:
'alleged to have been committed in respect of information obtained by the Commissioner or any of his officers by virtue of this Act or for an offence of perjury alleged to have been committed in the course of an investigation under this Act or for the purposes of an inquiry with a view to the taking of such proceedings'.
This Amendment is to meet a point which was raised by the hon. and learned


Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). Its purpose is to make it clear that the occasions which are referred to in the subsection of proceedings for perjury or proceedings under the Official Secrets Act being occasions when the Commissioner is entitled to disclose matters which he learns during the course of an investigation, should be limited to offences of perjury or proceedings under the Official Secrets Act which are taken in relation to the Commissioner's own activities and functions and those of his staff. In other words, we are limiting the words in the Bill which were criticised as being too wide.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 8, line 22, at end insert 'officer' includes employee.

No. 18 in line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 29.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2.—(DEPARTMENTS AND AUTH- ORITIES SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION.)

Mr. Roots: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 11, line 36, at the end to insert 'Land Commission'.
I can deal with the Amendment very shortly. In Committee the Financial Secretary undertook to deal with this matter. I have put down the Amendment to enable him to do so.

Mr. MacDermot: It is quite correct that I undertook to move this Amendment in due time, but the time is not yet due. We cannot insert this Amendment in the Bill unless and until the Land Commission Bill becomes an Act of Parliament before this one has completed its various stages. If that does not happen, we would then include the Land Commission in Schedule 2 by means of an order. It may be possible to make this Amendment in another place, but we cannot do it now.

Mr. Roots: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 11, line 38, at end insert:
'Lord President of the Council's Office'.

No. 22, in page 12, line 15, at end insert:
2. The reference to the Lord President of the Council's Office does not include the Privy Council Office.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 12, line 37, at the end to insert:
7. In relation to any function exercisable by a department or authority for the time being listed in this Schedule which was previously exercisable on behalf of the Crown by a department or authority not so listed, the reference to the department or authority so listed includes a reference to the other department or authority.
This is to meet a point which was raised in Committee and to make it clear that, where there has been a transfer of functions from a department which has ceased to exist to a present Department, the Commissioner's powers in relation to the present Department will include those transferred functions.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3.—(MATTERS NOT SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION.)

Mr. Roots: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 13, line 4, at the end to insert:
'unless such action affects the legal rights or status of a citizen of the United Kingdom'.
In Committe the Financial Secretary had pressed upon him at some length the deficiency in this paragraph of the Schedule. He said that he would consider a form of words which would enable, in particular—as an example—action and proceedings taken by consular officers to be dealt with. In these circumstances, as the Government have not tabled an Amendment, I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to accept this addition.

Mr. MacDermot: It is true that in Committee I offered to look further at paragraph 2 and see whether it would be possible at least to bring some of the activities of consuls within the scope of the Commissioner's investigation. I may have raised some hopes in the breasts of hon. Members. I must now dash them. I must make the reasons clear.
On looking further into this, I have to advise the House that it would not be workable, certainly at present, for us to try to include consular activities within the scope of the Commissioner's powers. The first reason is a severely practical one. There are over 400 consular posts throughout the world. They range from such places as Oulu in North Finland to Gallegos on the southern tip of the Argentine, from Katmandu to Tampico to Suva—in fact, to all quarters of the globe.
The Committee accepted that it would be wholly impracticable for us to expect the Commissioner and his officers to be flying all over the globe trying to investigate complaints against these consuls. Nor would it be practicable or consistent with the efficient working of the service to be recalling consuls and their officers constantly to this country in order that they should be interrogated by the Commissioner of his staff. Apart from anything else, this would be a stage where I would need as a Treasury Minister to put my foot down, simply on grounds of expense, if nothing else.
It was having regard to this sort of difficulty that I suggested that we would consider whether it might be possible to deal with these cases by a different procedure, relying largely on correspondence, or by the Commissioner interviewing the head of the department.
10.30 p.m.
When that suggestion was looked into, it found favour on no side. It certainly did not find favour with the Foreign Office, because they thought that it would be very unfair to their staff. After all, we hope and believe that many of the cases that are investigated by the Commissioner will result in the exoneration of the civil servant in respect of the complaint made against him, and the civil servant, naturally, will feel that justice requires that he should have exactly the same rights when he is a consul as any other civil servant to be heard in relation to a complaint that is made against him.
Equally, I must advise the House that the Commissioner-designate himself did not relish at all the prospect of a kind of second-class investigation which he would be expected to make in relation to consular activities and be expected to


make a report and reach a decision without being free to investigate the matter as fully as he would in any other case.
At the outset, just on those simple and practical grounds, at a stage when we do not yet know what is to be the kind of response to the right to make complaints and have them investigated by the Commissioner, we could not accept the responsibility of extending his activities in this way.
However, it is right that I should advise the House that there are other serious objections. I said in Committee that the activities of consuls
…are to a high degree dependent on the actions of local authorities and local persons for which we are not responsible and over which we have no control and which it would not be appropriate for the Commissioner to investigate."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 22nd November, 1966; c. 405.]
May I illustrate what I was saying there in relation to a specific example of a complaint made against a consul? I will not state the country, but an engineering firm in this country manufactured and supplied some heavy machinery to a foreign firm in a European city. Although the contract called for payment on completion, no payment was made, and the English firm had to sue for the contract price. It issued a writ in the High Court here which had to be served in the country abroad through the consul, in accordance with the Civil Procedure Convention. There was no British consul in the city in question, so the Foreign Office forwarded the documents for service to the nearest post, which was the consulate-general in whose district the city lay.
The documents arrived at the height of the tourist season, when the office was under very heavy pressure—[Interruption.]—I do not know why the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) laughs. It is helpful, when passing legislation, to try to focus our minds on actual circumstances that occur and about which we are asked to legislate. These are the sorts of circumstances which give rise to complaints against consuls.
As a result of that fact, the fact that the round journey of 500 miles or so would have taken two or three days and because of the high cost of effecting ser-

vice in this way, the consul-general decided that service by the local authorities, if it could be effected reasonably, would be preferable to service by a consular official. He instructed the vice-consul to find out from the local authorities whether they could effect service expeditiously under the alternative method provided by the Convention. He received an assurance that they could. The documents were forwarded to the local authorities, under cover of a formal note.
In the event, owing to delays in the local administrative and judicial machinery, service was not effected until many weeks had elapsed, despite frequent reminders to the local authorities that the matter was urgent.
Not unnaturally, the plaintiff company complained of this delay and alleged that it was disadvantaged in the proceedings as a result of it. In the meantime, the vice-consul had been posted from his European station to San Francisco. How would this be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner?
Either the Parliamentary Commissioner would stay in this country and the consul and vice-consul would be brought here or he would be expected to visit the country concerned. In either case, the cost would be very great. If the consul and vice-consul were brought here, it would mean serious disruption of the work of two consulates abroad. In any event, it would be difficult for the Parliamentary Commissioner here, without questioning the rest of the staff and examining the consular archives, to satisfy himself that the pressure of work in the consulate general justified the decision to attempt service through the local authorities.
Again, of course, the Parliamentary Commissioner could not satisfy himself about the alleged delay by the local authorities without being in that country. If, on the other hand, he visited the country—and here there would be the same difficulties about cost—there would be the added difficulty that any attempt by him to interrogate the local authorities would undoubtedly cause resentment on their part and might well, apart from anything else, result in the consulate-general receiving less co-operation in the future.
The fact is that, in this case, as in so many cases of complaints made against


consuls, it is their actions in relation to local authorities which are the subject of complaint and it would clearly be out of the question for us to send an officer of this House abroad and expect the other country to allow him to pursue an investigation by questioning and interviewing officials and authorities of that country. Without being able to do that, he would not be able to do anything more than form an assessment or judgment of what the consul had told him.
I think this example shows the serious practical difficulties in expecting the Parliamentary Commissioner here to be able to investigate complaints against consuls abroad. In addition to this, there is the great difficulty of finding any logically defensible way of dividing up the functions of consuls in order to limit the field of activities which should be the subject of investigation.
The Amendment suggests that we should confine it to actions affecting legal rights or status but this would be a wholly unsatisfactory distinction. One can get examples of quite trivial matters which involve, in some technical way, legal rights and therefore would give a right to investigation. Other far more serious matters, the kind of matters which are the subject of quite a number of complaints, would not, however, be within the scope at all.
For example, many of the complaints against consuls involve such matters as procedure by consuls for the repatriation of British subjects, advice and assistance given to British subjects when they run foul of the law or the authorities of another country and commercial information which is given to British businessmen for business purposes. None of these would be within the scope of the Amendment, but they are all instances of the kind of matters raised in our discussions in Committee as being the sort of things hon. Members would like to have seen brought within the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner.
An added difficulty is that, in many places, the consuls are not full-time members of our diplomatic staff but are honorary consuls who act for little if any remuneration, are usually citizens of the country concerned or perhaps local businessmen. They perform a very useful and valuable service and give a great deal

of assistance. It is doubtful whether they would be prepared to continue in circumstances where they would be subject to this kind of investigation and inquiry procedure. If they resigned in consequence, in many cases we would be hard put to it to find substitutes.
From a practical point of view there is nothing the Parliamentary Commissioner could do here beyond what a Minister can and does do when a Member refers one of those complaints to him. A Minister can call for a report, have the matter investigated by one of his senior officials, and discuss it with him. He can reach a judgment on the basis of investigation largely carried out by correspondence. It would be false of us in effect to ask the Parliamentary Commissioner to step into the Minister's shoes and do that and no more, and then pretend that we were giving some different and fuller type of investigation by allowing that to be done by him.
I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but this is an important matter which concerned many hon. Members in Committee, and I thought that I should explain fairly fully the reasons why we do not think it right to include consular activities.

Sir L. Heald: A protest should be made against probably one of the most bureaucratic speeches that has been made in the House for a long time—administrative convenience; the fact that some of the consuls might be apt to resign if asked to protect the rights of British subjects; the difficulty of getting information from different parts of the world. And for what? To deal with a case where the legal rights of a British subject are involved. The hon. and learned Gentleman should be ashamed of putting forward that kind of Treasury brief in such a matter.

Mr. Onslow: I share the regret of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) at the Financial Secretary's attitude to the Amendment. I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for only one small thing. As a former British consul, I am glad to have confirmation that whatever happens the sun still does not set on British consuls.
His argument against accepting the Amendment seemed rather odd, particularly in the light of what the Lord President said on one earlier Amendment. How many complaints are levied against British consuls in a year? How many of them would come within the ambit of this or some other definition of a case of maladministration which might be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner? It is all very well talking in terms of vast mileage which would have to be travelled by investigating officers looking into this, but it would be nice to have some sort of chapter and verse on that. It would be particularly interesting to know whether the case to which he referred at such length was, in his opinion, one which might have been referred to the Commissioner, for otherwise it is very difficult to evaluate his argument.
I will give the Lord President the credit of believing that he was serious when he held out the hope that by amending Clause 5, which would enable Schedule 3 to be amended by Order in Council, we might be able to bring the activities of British consuls within the ambit of the Bill. It would be a courtesy on his part now to explain how he sees the situation as described by the Financial Secretary having to be changed before the Order in Council could be brought before the House.
Would we have to see the 400 British consuls reduced to 20? Would we have to await the advent of Concord and cheap inter-continental travel? Where is the hope of some amendment in the objections to the informal procedure that enables him to hold out the possibility of bringing the British consuls within the ambit of the Bill? Or is the Lord President just frivolling? I am very much afraid that either he has not studied the brief which the Financial Secretary read with such care and attention to detail or is utterly unconvinced by it, in which case why should the Financial Secretary persist in his bureaucratic objections?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: I would not have intervened but for the testiness of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary when he saw, or thought that he saw, a smile of polite scepticism at his explanations pass over my counten-

ance. The scepticism was surely well justified.
Under Clause 8, the ombudsman can investigate a case by correspondence and I dare say that in the great majority of cases he will. If he has to travel to interview, or ask an official to return for interview, that surely will be the serious case, the case which requires investigation and which deserves a little extra expense. To present to the House, as the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to do, a picture of the ombudsman having to travel to San Francisco to interview an official because he has found difficulty in serving a document when he was appointed to Helsinki is utterly unreal and if the hon. and learned Gentleman expects those who listen to that kind of explanation not to show a certain amount of amusements and if he resents it when they do, he should offer better explanations.
As for the Lord President of the Council; when he offered the chance by some later Statutory Instrument of consuls being brought in, of course we knew that he was talking with his tongue in his cheek.

Sir D. Glover: All the Financial Secretary has said is that vice-consuls who may not be nationals of this country, could not be brought within the ambit of the Bill. That is a dreadful statement to make about the protection of the rights of British citizens. If a citizen is suffering hardship or injustice because of a consul in some outlandish place—and I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend would mind if I said that that would probably not apply to San Francisco, although it might apply to many places in South America and elsewhere—and if that consul might resign because the ombudsman criticised him, then it would be a very good thing if he did resign and we got another consul.
The reason for the Consular Service was the protection of the rights of British citizens and if it is not protecting those rights, there is something wrong with the Consular Service. It is no argument at all to say, as the Financial Secretary said, that administrative inconvenience might be caused and someone might resign. In that case, it might be a very


good thing if the person concerned did resign.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I have no wish to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) but the Minister said that this was a consul-general in a European country who, because he was busy during the holiday season—although doing what I am not sure, because the troubles of British tourists abroad are usually dealt with by some junior official and not the consul-general—and who, by the Minister's own admission had a vice-consul, had sent or failed to send papers to some local authority in a distant part.
This is all to do with the payment for some goods which have been exported, and surely the interests of British subjects in the export trade must be a concern of the Government. With their 110 or 111 Ministers plus the ombudsman, the Government must be interested in this and yet all we have been told is that it may be administratively difficult to deal with these cases.
I represent a great commercial city, the City of Bristol, which is much given to patriotic gestures in the export trade and doing its best to follow the Government's urgings and edicts to export. Here is another example of the Government for sheer administrative convenience not being prepared to make this great ombudsman, the curer of all ills, able to do his bit in the export drive, and heaven knows that we need all the help we can get. I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the Government's explanation.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 13, line 13, after action', insert 'so'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. Crossman: I beg to move, Amendment No. 27, in page 13, line 22, at the end to insert:
8. Action taken on behalf of the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State by a Regional Hospital Board, Board of Governors of a Teaching Hospital, Hospital Management Committee or Board of Management, or by the Public Health Laboratory Service Board.
This is the Amendment by which we put back into the Bill the decision that regional hospital boards should be excluded from the work of the ombudsman. I shall not repeat all the arguments rehearsed in Committee, but there was

serious objection to this, and there was a strong case for including them in the Bill. The basic argument against that was that there would be an awkward situation: we would have the medical service excluded from the ombudsman's consideration and the administration of the hospitals included; the ophthalmic service would be out, the dental service would be out, the pharmaceutical service would be out, and we would have the administration in.
I would be happy to see the ombudsman's work develop, but I would have thought we would like to see local government having its own commissioner and the hospital service having its own commissioner. So I think that it is better, on balance, that these services should be excluded now, always on the understanding that at a later date they can be put under the Commissioner by order of the House.

Mr. Roots: The fact that the Government have decided to move this Amendment to exclude from investigation the regional hospital boards and the other bodies mentioned will, I know, give a great deal of disappointment. Certainly it disappoints me. Since the Committee proceedings were reported I have had a number of letters from people all over the country wanting to have matters which were not entirely clinical investigated.
We have put down an Amendment to the Amendment to make it clear that clinical decisions should indeed be excluded, but if there is anyone who thinks hospital services—for example, regional hospital boards—are not subject to maladministration then he certainly can know very little about those bodies, because in many respects it is instances of maladministration which gives rise to a great deal of hard feeling—in a sense, unjustified, since it is criticism of the hospital services as such, rather than of the medical and clinical services.
I really cannot accept that it is impossible to distinguish, for the purposes of a complaint, between a clinical decision and sheer maladministration. An example dealt with at length in Committee was a useful one—the choice, for reasons other than clinical, of who should and should not have a private room or a private bed—and may be a matter which merits investigation.
I am confining my remarks to stressing the disappointment which, I know, a large number of Members will feel on the final absurdity of the whole position, which is that we find more and more ombudsmen breeding like a sort of fungi, for the Lord President apparently thinks everyone should have an ombudsman. I see we put his Department in, and therefore he may be feeling generous about other Departments.
When we have little ombudsmen for hospital and little ombudsmen for this and for that, it seems that the Lord President's intention is to produce absolute chaos, with ombudsmen investigating ombudsmen.

Mr. Crossman: I must correct that. What I said was exactly the opposite. I said, in the case of the Health Service, that I would be in favour of having it all in or all out; that it would be a mistake to have a division between those bodies mentioned in the Amendment and the other side, such as orthopaedics, the dental service, the pharmaceutical service, and general practitioners. It was this artificial division in the Health Service to which I objected. It is wrong to say that I wanted a separate ombudsman. I said, on the contrary, that it was now possible to consider it as a whole, and I would be in favour in due course of considering the possibility of bringing it in later. That is why we have the provision in Schedule 3.

Mr. Roots: I had understood the Lord President to envisage—and I should have thought it was the only way to envisage it—an ombudsman for the various hospital and medical services. I do not see how a Civil Service ombudsman could come to a conclusion on a clinical decision. I should have thought that, for all time, clinical decisions were highly unsuitable for investigation by any ombudsman, whether a hospital ombudsman or any other type.
This is another example of taking away from the ombudsman the very aspects which people want investigated. The operations of the Minister of Health already affect members of the public through, for example, the hospital service. The replacement of this paragraph is a very retrograde step.

Mr. Michael English: I agree with the last sentence of the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots). This is a highly retrograde step. Many Amendments were made to the Bill in Committee, and I am glad that the Government have accepted most of the Amendments that were made. To a large extent the Bill was not discussed purely on party lines. There were several issues on which the division of opinion was across party lines, and it may rightly be said that this was one.
My right hon. Friend the Lord President started off by saying that it would be wrong to have the hospitals in because there is an artificial division in the medical services. These are those things which the Crown is responsible for, which the Minister of Health is responsible for in theory where action is taken on his behalf. This is one category. There are others which are local authority services. This is wholly true, but it is equally true in other fields as well. Transport is an example, where the functions are divided between local authorities and the Crown. But in that case the actions of the Crown's officers and subordinates are to be investigated by the ombudsman, and not those of the local authorities. Why cannot the same principle apply here?
My right hon Friend knows the real explanation for putting this back. The real explanation is that doctors who are not civil servants—I stress that this is the category involved, not those, who in the normal and proper sense work in the Ministry of Health—might be offended if any of their decisions were subject to investigation.
I should like to correct one small point that was made by my right hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots). It is not true to say that the sole proposal made in Committee was to exclude clinical matters and to include administrative matters. There were several views advanced, and that particular one was put by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). I do not share it. I supported the total exclusion of this paragraph, as did many of my hon. Friends, for the simple reason that we do not see why doctors should be a professional class apart.
Why should doctors' clinical judgments not be challenged? A "vet's" clinical judgments, which may affect the property of a farmer, can be challenged as the Bill now stands. The same is true of any other professional judgment. There is good reason why some of them might be challenged. It is interesting that this can be done by the medical branch of the Ministry of Health itself, and, strangely enough, the Ministry's medical branch is not excluded by the terms of the Amendment. In other words, if I have a cause of complaint and I can persuade my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to use his medical branch to investigate the actions of doctors in the Hospital Service, I can then get the ombudsman to investigate that investigation and, presumably, in the course of doing it, he would have to refer back to the papers which the Ministry's medical branch looked at when doing the preliminary investigation.
But if I want to go about it in a more straightforward way and say, "Something went wrong in this hospital", whether it was someone kept out of a bed for inessential and invalid reasons or whatever it might be, I cannot get the ombudsman to deal with the problem direct. But, as I say, I can in a roundabout route achieve the same object. The Government's case here is somewhat peculiar to say the least.
I accept my right hon. Friend's point that, because of the Amendment regarding the possibility of excluding matters from Schedule 3, the Bill is now considerably better in this respect, but I still think that this particular Amendment has been put down because of the extreme sensitivity of the medical profession to criticisms or inquiries which most ordinary citizens believe to be good and which other professions accept in the interests of society as a whole. That is the real reason for the Amendment, and I regard it, therefore, as rather disgraceful that it should be the only item dealt with by the Committee which the Government have seen fit to put back into the Bill.

Mr. Hooson: The Lord President's attitude is very disappointing. We are concerned here with a Bill which gives Members of Parliament assistance in remedying administrative injustices. I imagine that a fair proportion of the

total sum of administrative injustice in this country arises in the hospital services, the decisions of regional hospital boards, and so on. These injustices bear very hard on patients and potential patients. We know from our post-bag that these are the problems we have from time to time which should be investigated. If we are deprived of the assistance of the ombudsman in investigating complaints from patients or potential patients, we shut out of the Bill the people who are least able to bear the administrative injustices, namely, the sick.
This is a highly retrograde step, and the Government have not attempted to justify it. The Lord President's attempt to differentiate between administrative injustice due to a decision of administrative staff and an injustice arising on the clinical side does not bear examination. Many injustices will be shut out from the field of inquiry of the ombudsman.
There is everything to be said for part at least of the National Health Service to be investigated by the ombudsman. We can add others later if it is found to work well. I am sure that the majority of hon. and right hon. Members agree that the Lord President has not made out his case for excluding the hospital services.

Dr. David Owen: I am disquieted that the Government have seen fit to reintroduce this paragraph. When the matter was first broached, I wondered whether it would be wise to exclude it, and I had very mixed feelings. The more I read the reports of the Committee stage of the Bill, the more I feel that the case for excluding the regional hospital boards and hospital management committees from the ambit of the Parliamentary Commissioner has not truly been made out.
For many years many of us have been very concerned about the undemocratic nature of regional hospital boards. It is well known that Aneurin Bevin was very upset that he did not find it possible to incorporate local government and a democratically elected element into the organisation and administrative structure of the National Health Service. At that time it was impossible to do so, for many


reasons—the difficulties of introducing a Bill, and so on—but it has always been the belief of many people in our party that a democratically elected regional hospital board should be the eventual aim. Obviously it will be many years before we get this.
We have now, in the Parliamentary Commissioner, a way of exerting some form of control over this section, and though I take the point made by the Lord President of the Council that we cannot include the general practitioner service, and other services which are run by the executive councils, the main administrative service lies in the regional hospital boards, and in the hospital management committees.
I can understand that because of the feelings of the Minister of Health the Government feel that they have to reinsert this subsection, but I hope that they will look again at this issue, and if possible give the House a pledge that they will establish a special hospital ombudsman if the case has to be made out that way. Many of us believe that this could naturally fall within the range of the present Parliamentary Commissioner, and I hope that the Government will think again on this.

Sir D. Glover: I am very encouraged, and I support nearly everything that was said about this problem by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). Although I have enormous respect for the individual who will take up this office, I have no great faith in the amount of injustice which will be removed by his appointment.
I find it possible to deal with nearly all the cases of justice which arise in my constituency. The one sphere in which I do not feel qualified to judge is health, which the Government are going to exclude. I think that this applies to most hon. Members. In our ordinary lives we know a good deal about industrial relations, about housing, and about this, that, and the other. The one sphere in which we are inhibited is health. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) is in a fortunate position, because he is a doctor, but most of us are not qualified to judge this issue, and I have a particular problem in my constituency

which I think ought to be included in the ombudsman's orbit.
There are two hospitals in this country, one at Rampton, in Nottinghamshire, and one in my constituency—

Mr. English: I believe I am right in saying that hospitals directly under the control of the Ministry of Health are in fact included, which makes this Bill even odder.

Sir D. Glover: I am delighted to hear that, because this is the problem with which I find it most difficult to deal. I was not a Member of the Standing Committee, so I do not have the advantage which the hon. Gentleman has.
What happens to the marginal case which is moved from one of the two hospitals which I have in mind to another hospital; someone who is still suffering from a sense of grievance? Who investigates such a case in a way which gives anybody any feeling of justice? I think that this is an even further argument why this aspect of the Health Service ought to be included.
I would not mind if tonight the Lord President of the Council said, "Look here, chums. This is a new field"[HON. MEMBERS: "Brothers."]—I am speaking from this side of the House, with respect, and I would hate the right hon. Gentleman to be my brother. He would ruin my relationship for life. I would not mind if he said, "Look here, chums. We have this new Bill. We do not want to overload it and go too far". If the right hon. Gentleman said, "Let us work it for 12 months or two years and see how it goes," there would be a great deal to be said for it. But the sphere which he is excluding is the one which nine out of 10 hon. Members would like to see included. I say that because, in the majority of cases which arise in this sphere, satisfactory conclusions could be reached, particularly since the ombudsman will only arrive at the same conclusions when the Bill becomes operative.
It is in matters of health that hon. Members feel inhibited, mainly because we do not like to be too critical and to investigate too far. Perhaps we are not ruthless enough in dealing with these problems. However, these are the problems with which the ombudsman should be particularly concerned.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I regret the decision of the Government on this issue because public accountability is most important and elusive in matters affecting hospitals. The complaints which we receive from our constituents about these matters usually come at times of grief, anxiety and vulnerability. It would have been in the interest of the increasing feeling of democracy which exists in the National Health Service had the Government taken a different line on this matter. The Health Service belongs to the people. This element of public accountability should, therefore, have been increased rather than decreased.
I am encouraged to make these remarks following my visit some months ago to Sweden, where I spent a great deal of time looking into the sort of cases with which the ombudsman there—and that is the right term to use for him—must deal. The hospitals and medical services are certainly not excluded in Sweden. Indeed, one might feel that they go to the other extreme.
I was told of one recent case in which the ombudsman figured. A hospital administrator had refused to hand over to the father of a girl who had died in the hospital the complete file relating to her case, medical notes and all. The decision to refuse to reveal the file had been taken in good faith by those in charge of the hospital. In fact, they thought that the documents would distress the father. However, the ombudsman rebuked the hospital authorities and stated that the complete availability of information was the right of members of the public. Following that, all the documents were disclosed.
I am not suggesting that in clinical matters we should go as far as our friends in Sweden. However, it is essential, if the public is to have confidence in the Parliamentary Commissioner, that at times of great stress in people's lives, they should feel that they can turn to him and have their doubts set at rest. Apparently this is not to be the case. I can only express the disappointment felt by a large number of people, particularly since nothing I have heard from the Government convinces me that there is adequate reason for this decision.

11.15 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I raised this subject with the Minister in Committee. In New Zealand, Sir Guy Powles gave an example some time ago of the sort of difficulties he must face. He stated:
Arising from complaints which were not themselves substantiated, it came to my notice that patients were not always aware of the full extent and likely consequences of certain types of serious gynaecological operations ….
He went on to examine this and then made his recommendations, which I think proved fairly satisfactory, and he did similar things in the health department.
We have raised in the Committee some of the areas, which are very large indeed, and although we were told that it was quite easy for us to approach our boards or get in touch with hospital committees, in the area which stretches from Gloucester to Penzance this is very difficult, particularly as Bristol is not a very convenient centre for people to go to.
The point to which I wish to draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention is that which he prayed in aid in the Committee. He said, in column 434,
I think hon. Members on both sides of the Committee know that for many years there has been concern about the adequacy of the procedure for investigating complaints within the National Health Service, and in particular within the Hospital Service. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has gone into this closely and he issued a new circular which some hon. Members may know about, on 7th March this year.
He added:
In this hospital management circular, H.M. (66) 15, entitled 'Methods of Dealing with Complaints by Patients' he sets out very fully his recommendations to the regional boards and the hospital management committees on the way in which complaints should be handled.
I think that in Committee none of the hon. Members—myself in particular—had heard of these recommendations, and we asked how this would work. We were told that it would be possible to have a lawyer to investigate these complaints. I should like to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman if he is going to pray in aid this circular again tonight.

Mr. Crossman: I think the reference is 8th December, cols. 371–373, in reply to a


Written Question. I think the substance of the circular was, in view of the interest aroused, published on 8th December.

Dame Joan Vickers: I was asking it this is going to be prayed in aid as a reason for not including the Amendment in the Bill tonight. If we are not to have this, I hope that, anyway, the Amendment to the Amendment will be accepted because this would be a definite advance at the present time.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In the course of the debate we had on this subject in Committee I suggested that there was a way of reconciling the difference between the two sides.
To some extent the Opposition Amendment to this Amendment goes some way, at any rate, towards bridging the gap. I believe there is a case for excluding from the ambit of the Parliamentary Commissioner's concern areas of clinical judgment which are frequently the kind of decision about which complaints in the hospital service are made, but where it would be extremely difficult for the Parliamentary Commissioner, unless he is provided with a very big qualified staff of medical practitioners, to make any kind of assessment. Therefore, on administrative grounds I think it would be difficult for him to intervene.
But I think it goes further than that. I think there is at the moment a very special concern about the morale in the hospital service, and I disagree with my hon. Friend who tried to equate the position of the medical practitioner within the service with the veterinary surgeon who will come within the ambit of the Commissioner's work, or with an architect or some other professional person.
I think at the moment there is a special crisis among medical staff in the hospital service and that we must pay attention to their morale. Therefore, I believe that if they are concerned that here is another official who may be investigating their work, we ought to bear that in mind in making a decision as to whether we could go to that extent at this stage.
I have no doubt that we shall get over that crisis and that in due course that argument for excluding clinical judgment will pass away. I cannot see any difference between the kind of maladministration that takes place regularly within the hospital service and mal-

administration taking place in any other Government Department.
I listened to the somewhat cursory speech of my right hon. Friend the Lord President in which he said that the real argument was that the hospital service consists of an area of Government concern and an area of local government concern. There is a difference between the normal services provided and the subsidiary services. It has already been pointed out that that applies in other areas in which the Parliamentary Commissioner will work. Surely, it is not beyond the skill of this distinguished public servant to be able to judge where the boundary is to be drawn.
When, however, my right hon. Friend went on to reply to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) to say that he was not suggesting that there should be a "little" Parliamentary Commissioner for the hospital service as well as a local government ombudsman, we got to the crux of the problem.
If we are to say that when we appoint a local government ombudsman we shall be able to make the decision that the rest of the hospital service should come within the ambit of the Parliamentary Commissioner, we would be saying that we will be able to make a decision where the division should come. We shall have to make it at that stage instead of now.
If we are to say that the local government ombudsman will take into consideration the whole of the hospital service, we could equally say at this stage that the Parliamentary Commissioner should also take into account the whole of the hospital service and leave that part of the local government area out of the purview of any local government ombudsman. We are faced with this difficulty of the divided control of the hospital service wherever we decide to make our stand. Therefore, this is not a good reason for trying to exclude the hospital service at this stage.
I do not feel so forcefully about the matter that I would want to vote against the Amendment. I did not vote against it in Committee, for the reason that the Government conceded a major concession in that they took power, which has been accepted in a previous Amendment,


to amend the Schedule by Order in Council at a later date. Experience may well prove that some of our criticisms were so justified that that power will be used.
The sensible view is that all the evidence is in favour of taking the power at this stage. I am sorry that the Government do not see it in this light. I hope that as a result of these representations, they might be prepared to accept the Opposition Amendment.

Sir L. Heald: In urging the House to support the Committee in its decision, I should like briefly to refer again to something which might encourage some hon. Members opposite who have spoken strongly about this matter to have the courage of their convictions by referring them to what was said by an eminent member of the Government, who is now Foreign Secretary, in an article he wrote in the New Statesman in 1964, in which he gave an advance view of the kind of thing that what he called the Labour Party's ombudsman would do. I have already referred to his reference to the discretionary aspect. There was to be no question of discretion. He said,
The Commissioner will be concerned with those episodes…where all the authorities have behaved correctly, yet the result is absurd or unjust.
He went on to mention hospitals:
Further, there are cases involving…hospitals".
He said,
There are cases…where evidence conflicts and the executive wishes to protect its servants. A tribunal under the 1921 Act may be too ponderous; yet the collective authority of parliament, rather than of a single M.P., may be needed to discover the truth. It is this collective authority which an ombudsman…would represent.
We all respect the right hon. Gentleman in these matters as someone who has a great interest in the rights of individuals. There is not the slightest doubt that at that time he believed that it was the Government's intention to have an ombudsman who would deal with these matters. This point was raised on Second Reading. Unfortunately, the present Leader of the House was not present when I quoted the Foreign Secretary and no reply was made to the point which I raised in that debate. It is therefore perhaps not altogether surprising that we have the present difficulty.
In view of the strong opinions which have been voiced on both sides of the House on what is not in the least a party question, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman, who is also Leader of the House, might not show his democratic attitude by taking some notice of individual Members of Parliament. There has been a tendency lately, I am glad to say, which many of us have noticed, which indicates that the right hon. Gentleman is undertaking his duties as Leader of the House with more idea of the rights of individual Members of Parliament on both sides of the House than we have seen for some time, and I suggest that this is an occasion on which he might carry that a little further.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will take note of the many contributions made on this question from both sides of the House and I hope that if he cannot accede to the request at this stage, at least the point which he mentioned—the possibility of extending the provisions to cover this field later—will eventually materialise.
I speak as a member of a regional hospital board and with many years' experience as a member of a group hospital management committee. Within the hospital service there are quite a number of procedures to ensure that one is able to give a fair deal to the patient and also a fair deal in other administrative respects. Procedures are laid down which enable an employee or anyone else in the Health Service or in the hospital service to have his case duly examined. The procedures are very fair, but it is precisely because in other fields, where we have similar procedures, there is a need for a long stop when, after every procedure is exhausted there is still a feeling that justice has not been seen to be done, that there is a need for an ombudsman. This is equally important both generally and in the Health Service.
I would go further than my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) and say that I am not quite satisfied about the clear distinction between the clinical and the administrative. I believe that in both the hospital service and the Health


Service we are sometimes inclined to be far too sensitive to what the doctors may feel. The patient, too, has his rights. I hope that it will be possible to extend these provisions, because every hon. Member knows, not only from his correspondence but from the many cases with which he deals in his bureau on Friday evening or Saturday morning, that this is an area which it was intended to cover by these provisions. Although my right hon. Friend may not be able to concede the point now, I urge him in his reply to make it clear that we can have an ombudsman for the hospital service.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: May I add my plea to that of numerous other hon. Members in different parts of the House? It is very late in the evening and we on this side fully recognise that the House has had two or three extremely long and trying debates within the space of only one week, on a varying set of subjects; and we agreed that we would not force Divisions after a certain hour. It is far beyond that hour now. We on this side imposed upon ourselves a self-denying ordinance, but when Parliament expresses a view so clearly and emphatically as it has on this Amendment, it would be very difficult for us to adhere to that resolution if the right hon. Gentleman does not give us some comfort.
The Bill has to go to another place, and the Government often use the advantage of our bicameral system for making alterations in legislation, and if the right hon. Gentleman says that he has not closed his mind to these very serious arguments but will consider them more than hitherto, then we might well leave this in an amicable frame of mind. What is not possible is for a self-respecting House of Commons with an Opposition which is part of our constitutional framework to allow a matter of this kind to go unvoted upon unless the Government, through the right hon. Gentleman, show some signs of paying more attention to what has been said.

Mr. Crossman: I should like to thank all those who have taken this matter so seriously even at this late hour. When I started n-y intervention I said that the strongest case so far had been made for the Amendment, but it is a misunder-

standing for any hon. Member to say that it was not discussed in Committee. It was discussed very fully, and from the first it was known to be a major issue, and an issue upon which it was obvious that there are definitely two opinions. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said that we could take the whole hospital service, clinical and non-clinical, and that it would be damned good for the doctors to be treated in this way. Yet some people say that there could be no more unfortunate moment than this to introduce this kind of Motion. I can understand the motive of my hon. Friend, who has consulted me because he thought I was stubborn, but I must tell him and tell the House that I see very serious difficulties in making a separation between the clinical and the administrative sides. There is something in the case on both sides, but if one tries to achieve something for only one, then I think many cases would get argued out.
The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) was right to remind us that the Minister of Health has recently issued Regulations for the redress of grievances in the service, and a strong argument exists for their being tried out before one can say if they are of any use. At a late hour such as this, when the House speaks so strongly, no Minister would do anything but take the House seriously and think very carefully over what has been said. I must say here that what I said about the future in the case of local government, as I showed during the Second Reading of the Bill, is that it is made out because local government has its own organisation away from the centre. The Health Service is not part of that, and I said that this was an "in or out" issue at the moment.
I also emphasised that we had put our Amendments in so that if, in the course of time, it is felt necessary this House can decide, by a negative Order to bring the whole hospital service within the Act. The powers are there, without any change in the Act. That is true. Certainly I will consider this while it is going to the other place, and we will discuss it once again with the Minister of Health, who has very strong and considered views on the subject.
If, as I anticipate, we are not able to concede fully on the matter, the House will have a second defence. It has the power to make a change if it is felt that we have been wrong on this matter.
On the whole issue, I would say in conclusion that we are running here what has been called an experiment. We have been careful to draw the experiment narrowly. If it has been drawn too narrowly, we have the chance in the Bill of expanding the area.
I am grateful to the House for putting it in such a good tempered and thoughtful way, and I would ask hon. Members now if we might conclude our deliberations on this part of the Bill.

Sir J. Hobson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not want to mislead us, but it is not the position that the House can deal with this. The House can only control an Order in Council. The House could not pass a Resolution altering Schedule 2. It is only the Government who can introduce an Order, and the House could then control it.

Mr. Crossman: That is perfectly correct. The Government could introduce the Order, but the House could take a view on the Order.

Mr. Hogg: I am anxious to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, if at all possible. Did he give us an assurance that he will reconsider reinserting some form of Amendment at a later stage?

Mr. Crossman: I gave the assurance that between now and its passage through another place, in view of what has been said here, we will certainly reconsider this and discuss it with the Minister of Health. This is an important issue. It is not an easy one at all. However, the position needs reconsideration, and we will certainly give it that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 13, line 25, at the end to insert:
'being transactions of a government department or authority to which this Act applies or of any such authority or body as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of section 6 of this Act and not being transactions for or relating to—
(a) the acquisition of land compulsorily or in circumstances in which it could be acquired compulsorily;

(b) the disposal as surplus of land acquired compulsorily or in such circumstances as aforesaid.'
The Amendment is designed to meet two points which I agreed to look at further as a result of our discussions in Committee.
Paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 excludes all action taken in matters relating to contractual or commercial transactions from investigation by the Commissioner. That was criticised as being wide wording, on two counts. The first was that the exclusion relates not only to commercial transactions to which the Government or public departments are a party, but also Government action in relation to contracts between purely private parties.
The second class was cases where land was acquired under negotiation, but negotiations where the acquiring authority had powers of compulsory purchase. The point was raised by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) that these were not true commercial transactions, because when one side negotiates with powers of compulsory purchase behind it, it puts the parties on a quite different footing. Both those points are met in the Amendment, and actions taken by the Government in relation to transactions between private parties will now be in. These would include, for example, action taken by the Department of Economic Affairs in relation to private transactions under the prices and incomes policy, by the Board of Trade exercising its powers under the Companies Acts or in relation to proposed mergers, or action taken by the Registrar of Friendly Societies in relation to building society contracts. That is not an exclusive list, but it illustrates the kind of activity which is covered.
The other kind of case would cover not only action in relation to the acquisition of land, but also its redisposal—what I would call the Crichel Down type of case.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hogg: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 13, line 26, to leave out
'appointments or removals, pay'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): It would be convenient also to


take Amendment No. 35, in page 13, line 27, Leave out
'superannuation or other personnel matters'.

Mr. Hogg: This is a horrible subject to have to explain at this hour, but I think I can do so fairly lucidly. Both Amendments affect paragraph 9 of Schedule 3. Paragraph 9 lists as being excluded from an investigation
Action taken in respect of appointments or removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or other personnel matters, in relation to—
three classes of public servants, if I may use the term in a non-technical sense.
Clearly, discipline is not amenable to this kind of investigation. That I think, we are all agreed about. The three classes of public servants, although they are lumped together in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), are really people not in the same categories as one another. Subparagraph (a) covers
…the armed forces of the Crown, including reserve and auxiliary and cadet forces; 
Sub-paragraph (b) covers the Civil Service, roughly speaking. Sub-paragraph (c) includes persons who are employed under contracts for services—a phrase which I do not propose to embark on at this hour but which will be familiar to members of my profession—and those who give services which do not ordinarily rank as service in the sense of regular employment as a servant.
Frankly I do not think the three categories of persons involved under paragraph 9 are exactly in the same position as one another as respects all these words in the Amendments. If it were thought right by the Government to accept in principle some of the thinking behind the Amendments, I would be content if they were redrafted so as to exclude the Armed Forces from the question of appointments or removals, because one must recognise not merely that the Armed Forces are in a different category as regards discipline, but also that the grievances procedure inside them is of a different kind and in some ways more comprehensive than other procedures.
To take the strongest case, I cannot see why, if the Parliamentary Commissioner is to be of any value to any one at any time, he should not be able to investigate maladministration connected with superannuation and pensions and

matters of that kind, together with personnel matters generally, provided, of course, one recognises that, by the time one reaches paragraph 9, maladministration has a very narrow interpretation.
If there is to be any justification for the operations of the Parliamentary Commissioner, this is exactly the sort of thing, amongst others, that he should be looking into. I apologise for the slightly truncated nature of my remarks at this hour.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: I shall try to emulate the brevity of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), not out of disrespect but because of the hour. The subject matter of the Amendments was fully debated in Committee, and I refer any hon. Members who want fuller argument to that debate.
The Amendments would, first, bring within the Parliamentary Commissioner's scope all matters other than strict questions of discipline within the Armed Forces—the whole range of personnel matters. Secondly, they would bring in virtually all matters of internal relations within the Civil Service. I need not dwell on the third class, in paragraph (c), which is rather narrow, relating particularly to police and teachers, where action to be taken may be approved by a Minister.
The principle on which we have taken our stand on both the Armed Forces and the Civil Service is that our intention is that the Commissioner shall deal with complaints about the relationship between the Government and the governed, and that internal matters within the Government are not for this procedure. There are other and, we believe, adequate procedures for dealing with them. If they are not adequate, they can be ignored.
In the Civil Service we have the Whitley Council machinery, which has a very long history and has commanded respect not only in this country but all over the world. We have very carefully worked out safeguards for civil servants in that machinery. The argument which I regard as most telling, and on which I put great weight in Committee, is that the staff side of the Whitley Council machinery is content with that procedure and do not wish the Parliamentary Commissioner procedure to be imposed upon their sphere.
Entirely different considerations apply to the internal relationships in the Armed Forces, as compared with the Civil Service, let alone those of the Government and the governed. If it is felt that the existing procedures for investigating complaints are inadequate, that is a matter to raise on the defence debates. All hon. Members have experience of taking up complaints with Service Ministers, and I find that I tend to get rather further with constituency cases relating to the Armed Forces than with many other Departments.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why the exclusion should apply to superannuation and pension matters. It can be argued that it should not apply, since we are dealing with people who, ex hypothesi, have left the service and are private individuals. But the answer is that the subject matter of the complaint, namely, superannuation or pension rights, still derives from and relates to their relationship of service as former Government servants. If we tried to include them in the way suggested, that would itself produce anomalies, because many superannuation matters, like other Civil Service conditions of service, are discussed and negotiated with the staff side. It does not regard this as being different, and the same is true of police and teachers' pensions.
Superannuation questions are often closely linked in the Civil Service with such questions as establishment, redundancy, efficiency and conduct, and there would be great difficulty in admitting superannuation while those matters remained excluded.
I feel that I am already trespassing on the time of the House. I urge the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

11.50 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not think that at this hour the House will want a long Third Reading speech. I merely express my own personal gratitude to hon. Members for what has been from my own point of view an

extraordinarily interesting Bill to pilot through the House. I hope that the Bill will shortly become law and we shall be able to start on a quite considerable experiment in our system of Government.
We said at the outset that we felt that certain basic principles on which the Bill was framed were cardinal and that we would stand firm on them, but that subject to that we hoped to be flexible and meet the wishes of the House. I hope that the House will feel as a result of the Report stage today that we have met a number of valuable criticisms of the Bill during Committee.
I pay tribute to the assistance which we have had during this phase of passing the Bill through the House from the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate. It has been of very great help to us to have his advice on a number of points and, as I informed the House, one of the Amendments which we accepted today was the result of a suggestion which came from him.
When the Bill has passed through another place and become law, the next matter to which we shall have to give our careful attention will be the establishment of a Select Committee, which will be necessary to receive the reports of the Commissioner and to give assistance to him and the House in our relations with him.
At one time or another much has been said about the Commissioner being a servant of the House. It is important to remember that in another sense he will be not a servant, but an officer of the House. We are establishing a post with a status equivalent to that of the Comptroller and Auditor General under a Bill which vests him with considerable powers and authority and discretion. These are matters which we should put fairly and squarely on his shoulders.
I am sure that when it is set up the Select Committee will respect his independence and seek to assist him in his task. Having chosen to set up a Parliamentary watch dog, I am sure that we will not want the Select Committee to start trying to do the barking for him. As I said earlier, I conceive that by and large the Select Committee will not be concerned with the investigation of or concerned with the investigations or the reports on particular individual cases. What it will be concerned with is in


helping to work out the procedures and, in particular, the conventions which we must de vise among ourselves as hon. Members in handling complaints which are to be referred to the Commissioner and, secondly, in receiving his reports and seeing what kind of action we need to take as Members of Parliament to put right situations which are brought to light by his investigations.
I believe that this will prove to be a useful and valuable Bill and I commend it to the House.

11.54 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I found the Committee stage of the Bill interesting, but, not being a lawyer, I found it at times a little difficult to follow. I am worried about Clause 5, which will put an enormous responsibility on the individual hon. Members concerned. We are now to be a channel through which complaints will go, and I think that it will be extremely difficult for hon. Members to decide which should be the case to be sent on to the Parliamentary Commissioner. In Committee, many of us found that the Financial Secretary did not agree that the examples which we suggested were the types of case which ought to be sent on.
I foresee that there will be a further difficulty. It says here that a complaint must go through a Member of Parliament. Suppose somebody comes to me, as a Member of Parliament, and I, rightly or wrongly, decide that I am not going to send his complaint on. He can then go to another Member of Parliament. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that we have to devise some conventions amongst ourselves. I think that that will he extremely important.
We have been told that the Commissioner will be a sharp instrument. I think some Members may find it is too sharp an instrument, because it may spoil the relationships which exist between a Member and his constituents. For example, suppose someone comes to me and I suggest to him that his complaint is not the type of case which should go to the Parliamentary Commissioner, and he goes to another Member of Parliament who does send the complaint on, and it is investigated, and it is found that I was entirely wrong. If that sort of thing happens constituents will lose

confidence in their Member of Parliament, and that is the thing which worries me about Clause 5.
So I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman may consider issuing, anyhow at the beginning, some form of leaflet of instruction to the public on the type of case they should bring to their Members for sending on to the Commissioner, and to Members as well, so that they understand what type of case should be sent on. Otherwise I think most of us may in complete fear send on every case we receive, particularly if constituents who bring them are persistent.
If a Member sends on a case and it is successful from the complainant's point of view, then there will be a danger that that Member may be thought by many people to be a successful Member and they may decide to send all their complaints to him, because they think he is more knowledgeable than other Members.
I am also nervous that this may become a party political think if we are not careful. It is thought by many people that a Member of Parliament of the Government party has more chance of getting things done than has a Member of the Opposition party. Therefore, this may become a party matter.
I do not want to say anything more, because these are the points which I wanted to draw to the attention of the House tonight. I hope we may find some way to preserve the good relationships which Members have with their constituents. I hope everything will be done to encourage constituents to come to their own Members of Parliament, anyhow at first, and that a convention may grow up that if a Member receives a complaint from a constituent not his own he will refer it to that constituent's own Member and refer the constituent to his own Member.
For there is yet another danger—that a person may circulate 630 Members at one time with his complaint. I do not know how this will be safeguarded against. If we get this kind of handout —some of us have already had it—in regard to complaints, there may be some way in which we can perhaps get together and consult the Commissioner about whether he has had many requests from that individual on a particular case. I


hope that we may have some guidance in future, so that the particular relationship, which I think we all value, between ourselves and our constituents should not be broken down by unnecessary overlapping in taking up cases.
In conclusion, I should like to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for being so helpful in Committee. Perhaps he will consider the points which I have raised now.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I hope the fears of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) will be allayed to some extent by the way in which the Select Committee works. I hope that that Select Committee will gradually work out a procedure whereby these difficulties are ironed out.
I do not want to detain the House at this hour for very long, but it would indeed be churlish if at this stage someone from these benches who has so consistently criticised various parts of the Bill were not to pay some tribute to the very fact that this Bill has been introduced and is being passed into law, because this Commissioner is the greatest aid to the liberty of the subject, in his relationships with the State, to have been provided since 1947, when the former Labour Government introduced the Crown Proceedings Act.
It would be wrong to give the impression, simply because some of us at various stages have said that some of the exclusions were too wide, that there is nothing for the Parliamentary Commissioner to do. In fact, the whole field of Government is open to inspection and criticism by the Parliamentary Commissioner, and this will have profound effects upon the relationship between the individual and the State. This is one of the most important Bills which has been before this House since the Government came into power. I congratulate the Government on introducing it and seeing that it goes through.
It is perhaps unfortunate that the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) suggested at an earlier stage that the Bill is unduly restrictive. That comes ill from one who was Attorney-General in a Government which consistently refused to

introduce the measure, even after the Whyatt Committee had reported in favour of it. The Bill gives power to a Parliamentary Commissioner which is even wider than that suggested by the Whyatt Committee. I believe that this will be one of the really important developments in the history of the relationship between the individual and the State.

12.1 a.m.

Mr. Hogg: I am just as agnostic about the virtues of this Bill as I was at the beginning. It is not a question of party politics; it is a question of judgment, and my judgment has always been against it. It is against it now.
I recognised from the start that this was an experiment which the public wanted and which probably the House wanted and, therefore, was an experiment which we should not obstruct. Therefore, although I do not believe in it, I wish it well. It is as well that I should say why I do not believe in it now any more than when it was first canvassed. There has been no change of opinion on my part in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's mutterings now and the occasion when, even this evening, he twitted me for a change of opinion.
Anyone who contemplates an office of this kind is faced with the dilemma of making it either a Frankenstein or a nonentity—a Frankenstein if it has effective powers and a nonentity if it has not. The Government, quite rightly, has opted for its being a nonentity, and in that sense it is a fraud.
One can look at the actual terms of the Bill, on Third Reading, the most significant being the exclusions in Schedule 3 and the carefully drawn language of Clause 5 which prevent anything worth discussing by this procedure from being discussed at all. A Frankenstein would have been a great deal worse, I congratulate the Government on its being a nonentity. A Frankenstein would, I think, have undermined the power of Ministers and would have undermined the authority of individual Members of Parliament. That, I am quite sure, is not to be.
I noted the exclusions, by which I mean the contents of the Bill—not the things which are not in it but which ought to be in it, which would be out of order


now, on the occasion of the Second Reading. My ultimate conclusion about this Bill is that it is a noble facade without anything behind it. It is like the holy water on Mount Athos—"It'll do ye nae hairm and it'll do ye nae guid".

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody discharged from the Select Committee; Mr. Urwin added.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Orders of the Day — TEES-SIDE AIRPORT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: I am very pleased to have an opportunity even at this early hour of the morning to discuss a matter of vital importance to all those who are concerned with establishing good communications between Tees-side and other conurbations in this country and throughout the world. Teesside airport is situated about four miles from my constituency. It is, in fact, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Joseph Slater), who played a creditable part in the initial stages of the development of this civil airport.
The airport is controlled by a joint airport committee representing local authorities in the region. I pay tribute to the efforts of the committee, under the chairmanship of Alderman Boothby of Middlesbrough. It has spent about £400,000 on developing the airport, which will now stand comparison with any of similar size in the country. The technical facilities are modern. Its runways will take jet aircraft. It has recently had new bright and modern terminal buildings erected, and a first-class hotel

has recently been completed at the airport.
In October last year, B.K.S., which operated a scheduled service from Teesside to Heathrow, advised the joint airport committee that it wished to withdraw, and, until the end of the year, the service was operated jointly by B.K.S. and B.E.A. In the meantime, the Air Transport Licensing Board considered applications from B.E.A., British Eagle and Autair International Airways for a licence to operate the service between London and Tees-side in place of B.K.S. At its meeting on 7th December, the Licensing Board decided to grant the licence to Autair International Airways.
I have my own views on the wisdom of that decision, but I recognise that, under the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Regulations, 1964, the parties to the case, that is, B.E.A., British Eagle, the British Railways Board and the Tees-side airport joint committee, have the right to appeal to the Board of Trade against the decision of the A.T.L.B. Until the time for lodging an appeal has expired or, alternatively, until the Board of Trade has determined the appeal, it would not be proper for me to enter into discussion of the merits of the various applications. There will be an appeal in which all parties will have opportunity to state their case before the appeals commissioner. I recognise, therefore, that the Minister could not listen to arguments which would be outside the statutory procedure of appeal.
I shall not discuss the granting of the licence to Autair, but I wish to focus attention on the decision of this company, having been granted the licence, to operate the service from Tees-side to Luton and not Heathrow, which was formerly the terminal of B.K.S. The decision to make Luton the terminal point was not that of the Air Transport Licensing Board. In its evidence to the Board, Autair said that it was prepared to fly into Heathrow provided that it was directed to do so by the Board, but its own preference was for Luton. The licence was not granted for Luton only, and Autair could, if it wished, terminate its London flights at Heathrow. The decision, therefore, rested entirely with the operators.
Let us consider the consequence of this company's decision to use Luton instead of London. Luton is 32 miles from London. Travelling from there to the North London terminal at Swiss Cottage will take at least an hour, and probably considerably more in peak traffic periods. Following that there will be a tube journey from Swiss Cottage into Central London which will take another 15 to 20 minutes. How many passengers will be prepared to make this journey, particularly when British Rail have said that from March of this year trains running from Darlington to London will complete the journey in 3 hours 10 minutes, and at half the cost of air travel?
There is, at least, an element of choice for passengers to London, and the airline can win passengers only if its service is considerably quicker than other forms of transport, but this is not the only aspect of the matter. What about the passenger who wishes to connect at Heathrow with planes for America or Europe? B.K.S. estimate that about one-third of its passengers to Heathrow were inter-line passengers merely changing planes at Heathrow in order to board planes going abroad. This estimate may well be on the low side, because, from a survey taken last September, it seems that 43 per cent. of passengers from Tees-side to London were inter-line passengers making a change at Heathrow. It is difficult to imagine all these passengers opting to fly to Luton and then having to face a journey of perhaps 75 minutes or an hour and a half to get from Luton to Heathrow.
It is important to realise the number of passengers who will be inconvenienced by these new arrangements. It is necessary, if this matter is to be looked at in perspective, to give some idea of the volume of passenger traffic from Teesside. If B.K.S. had not withdrawn its services last October, about 100,000 passengers would have passed through Tees-side. Of these, about three-quarters, that is 75,000 people, travelled to Heathrow. If we take 40 per cent. of the total number of passengers as representing those who want to connect with other planes from London, this means that on the 1966 estimate about 30,000 passengers a year will have to put up with wasted time, frustration, and per-

haps missed flights, as a result of the decision of Autair to terminate its services at Luton.
Even with the limited experience that we have of the service to Luton, it is apparent what is happening. From the 1st to 15th January of this year, that is two weeks, 647 passengers were carried on the Luton run, either to Tees-side or from Tees-side. In the corresponding period of 1966 the number of passengers from and to Heathrow was 1,201. The freight figures are even more alarming. For the two weeks which I have mentioned, in 1966 freight traffic totalled 16,700 kilos, but this year it dropped to 4,460 kilos. These figures are not likely to give any confidence to those who are looking forward to the expansion of the airport, and it is difficult to understand why, in the face of public opinion, the firm has adopted this policy of terminating its London run at Luton.
The explanation is that Autair has a repair depot at Luton. I also understand that the firm has an interest in the North London Air Terminal at Swiss Cottage. Nevertheless, the Air Transport Licensing Board did not grant a license for the convenience of the company but for the convenience of the travelling public. How can the company establish a viable business on Teesside if the climate of hostility is such that it is unable to get passengers?
There is a tremendous outcry against the firm's decision. The North Economic Council and the North-East Development Council have recorded their regret at the decision, as have many of the local authorities in the area, as well as the Airport Joint Committee, chambers of commerce, many businessmen and organisations, many hon. Members who represent the North-East and myself. Scores of letters have been received protesting about this decision.
A Motion signed by practically every hon. Member who represents North-East constituencies may appear on the Notice Paper tomorrow protesting against this decision. What steps has Autair taken to consult public opinion in the matter? What must we do to convince the firm that it is not only in the interest of the North-East as a development area, in the interest of the travelling public and in the long-term interest of the firm


that it should change its decision? What can we do, other than campaign for the withdrawal of the license, so that Autair is left in no doubt that public opinion is overwhelmingly against Luton as the London air terminal? It must be made clear that such a campaign will be mounted unless it has second thoughts on the subject.
I do not want anything I say to be interpreted as being in any way hostile to Autair, particularly since the reports I have received show that it is an efficient company, that its aircraft fly to schedule and that the service which it provides is praiseworthy in every way. The hostility arises from the fact that the firm has made the wrong decision in flying into Luton instead on into London.
What prospect is there of getting the management to change its mind? The managing director of Autair stated in the local Press, speaking about ending the London terminal at Heathrow, that he was prepared to do that
…if, in the light of experience…there is an overwhelming demand for Heathrow".
The figures I have quoted show that there is certainly not an overwhelming demand for Luton. How will he judge the demand? What "light of experience" does he wish to consider? Will it be judged by the number of people who do not use the new service? If that is the result and if the service to Luton is a flop, as it seems might happen, it will be difficult to prove anything by afterwards switching to Heathrow, since many of the firm's potential customers will have made other arrangements, perhaps travelling by rail to, say, Newcastle or Leeds for some of the journey.
Another factor is that if the firm does not fly into Heathrow it will lose the slot it now has to take aircraft into Heathrow from Tees-side. The slot, between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., will be allocated to another airline if it is not established quite quickly.
The only conclusion to be drawn, if the service from Tees-side to Luton fails, is that Tees-side does not want a London service. That is the conclusion that might be drawn by the Air Transport Licensing Board. But Tees-side is not being offered a London service. It is being offered a service to a town in Bed-

fordshire, which is 32 miles from London and which, in the estimation of many businessmen, will add two to three hours' travelling time to the journey. It would, therefore, be more sensible for Autair to fly into Heathrow—and then, if there is an overwhelming demand for Luton, it could transfer there, but it is unlikely that such a transfer would need to take place.
Because some of my hon. Friends would like to contribute to this debate, I will restrict my remarks.
There is to be an appeal. If the appeal is to be heard, will the Minister make arrangements for it to be heard as early as possible? We understand from the Press that it may be August before the appeal is heard. We would like reconsideration to be given to the whole question of the licence between Tees-side and London, and we want this matter settled not in the far distant future but as early as possible. Would my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that this will be speeded up and that if applications and appeals are sent in they will be heard at the ealiest possible moment?
I want finally to stress that there is an overwhelming feeling among all sections of the population in and around Tees-side that we are highly dissatisfied with an air service which terminates at Luton. I hope my remarks, and perhaps some others which hon. Members may make tonight, may convince the firm that they are wrong and should have second thoughts about this matter.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: I rise to support the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. T. Fletcher) in everything he has said this evening. We in the North-East are extremely worried by the decision of Autair to fly into Luton.
I think we have all been approached by many companies in the North-East which are using Tees-side for flying on to the Continent and other parts of the world. Tees-side, which is now a great exporting centre in this country, has tended to develop Tees-side Airport for connection with other overseas flights from Heathrow.
I think many of us are extremely worried by some of the statements made by the Air Transport Licensing Board.
After the decision to allow Autair to fly into Luton they said in a somewhat strange statement that although it takes longer to get from Luton into London, "one can get out of an airplane quicker in Luton." That does not give much satisfaction to anyone flying from Tees-side to London.
They went on to say that if this application had been made for an entirely new service instead of for a replacement for the one formerly operated by B.K.S., it would probably have been refused because of the excellent British Rail services from Darlington. Many of us quite frankly think this is disgraceful because there are a great number of people who are using Tees-side Airport for flights on to the Continent, particularly for holidays and business.
This is one of the great advantages. One can fly from Tees-side and connect at London Airport with a flight to the Continent, which saves all the problems of getting across London with luggage.
I think it is true to say that practically every major firm on Tees-side is objecting to these proposals. I, like the hon. Member for Darlington, have no wish to criticise Autair as a company, but unless—and this is most important for the Minister to realise—they take up their slot at London Airport we may lose the opportunity of flying into Heathrow in future. This would be an extremely unsatisfactory decision for Tees-side Airport, and I hope the Minister can have the appeal heard in the very near future so we can get this problem sorted out.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. James Tinn: I express, very briefly, my complete support for all that has been said so far in the debate, and particularly my gratitude—indeed the gratitude of the whole area—to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) for initiating the debate.
The ground has been well covered and the case has been excellently argued. I ask the Minister to take whatever steps are open to him—perhaps with the Heathrow scheduling committee—to ensure that this time slot at Heathrow is kept available until the issue is finally determined. It is in the highly desirable 9 a.m. period which other operators are desirous of having. If this one dis-

appears, it might well be that no future air service from Tees-side could satisfactorily operate to Heathrow.
May I also make the point to my hon. Friend that this whole problem illustrates the crying need for a regional airport authority and a regional plan. I hope that this is something that will emerge.

12.26 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): The House will understand that I have considerable difficulty in replying to this debate, for reasons which I will mention. One point, however, on which I have no difficulty is in fully supporting the statements that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) has made about the airport at Middleton St. George. I am new in this job but I know enough to realise that it is a first-class airport. It has first-class runways and hangars, a new terminal building and even an hotel. It has developed extremely well under the very good initiative of the Tees-side authorities. My hon. Friend mentioned the consortium of 11 or 13 local authorities which have got together to develop the airport.
In passing, I would say that this very good airport would be even better if the Tees-side authorities could possibly get together with a similar consortium on Tyneside and work those two airports, not in competition, but in co-operation.
On the substance of the case which has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn), I regret that I am unable to make any comment, for the obvious reason that there is still the possibility of an appeal from the decision of the Air Transport Licensing Board. For the Board of Trade, therefore, the issue is sub judice.
If an appeal is lodged we shall go through the usual procedure of appointing an independent commissioner, who will then report to the President, and it will be up to my right hon. Friend either to accept or to reject the recommendations of the commissioner. The Board of Trade is, therefore, somewhat in the position of a judge, and it would be most unwise and indelicate of me to make


any comment about either the findings of the Board or of the present decision of Autair to fly into Luton.
I was, however, pressed, very rightly, to do whatever I could in the event of appeal to ensure that the appeal was held quickly. It is necessary to allow a little time before the hearing of the appeal to give the chance to anybody who wants to appear before the commissioner to prepare evidence and to produce new evidence if necessary. It is also necessary to have a little time for the hearing and for the preparation of the report and then consideration of it.
We in the Board of Trade will certainly do whatever we can to make sure that there is no avoidable delay in coming to a decision. It depends, however, not only upon us; it depends upon the appellants preparing their case quickly and present-

ing it. For the Board of Trade, I am most willing to give the undertaking that we shall do whatever we can to get a decision in what is obviously a very important matter.

Mr. Tinn: Would the Minister please see what can be done to meet a point which I put to him—to make representations to the Heathrow Committee to ensure that the time slot is kept open?

Mr. Mallalieu: I am sorry that I did not deal with that point. I am not absolutely sure whether we have any powers to give any direction. I think that we have not. But I will see that the point is made.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock.